Runboard.com
Слава Україні!



Runboard.com       Registered Members Will See No Ads - CLICK TO REGISTER FOR FREE  LOGIN

 
Riane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 04-2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Reply Quote
Worldviews: what on earth are they?


I can see that this is a debate that could take a great deal of space, and so in the interest of keeping it topical I’ve moved it to a new thread. A separate evolution/creation debate is also an option, although at this stage not something I have the time to pursue (considering it is a debate I was very much involved in a while ago on this board, and I think it not really productive to rehash areas we’ve already been to). My interest here is on the more basic level of worldview discussion, which underlies any discussions on evolution/creation. Hopefully we can keep this thread focused on that particular element.

Before I respond to some of the specific comments from the other thread, I want to preface by going back a little and trying to ensure that we’re on the same page as far as possible. What exactly to I mean when I’m talking about a worldview? This is the most succinct and encompassing definition I’ve come across:

A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously and subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.
James W. Sire


Please don’t be put off by the mention of ‘the heart’ – in this context it does not have the emotional connotations that one would usually attach to the concept. Essentially what Sire is describing is the ‘central defining element of the human person’ that includes the notions of wisdom, desire, will, emotions and intellect.

The other point to be made in relation to the definition is this: Our worldview may not necessarily be what we think it is; it is rather what we show it to be by our words and actions. Our worldview generally lies so deeply embedded in our subconscious that unless we have reflected long and hard, we are unaware of what it is.

Sire also proposes that if a worldview can be expressed as a basic set of presuppositions, those presuppositions will be based on the answers to the following seven questions:

1) What is prime reality – what is really real? The answer might be God, or gods, or the material cosmos, depending on which worldview you are coming from. This question is the most foundational, because the six that follow it will stem from or be related to it in some way.

2) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? Answers here would point to whether we see the world as created or autonomous, as chaotic or orderly, as matter or spirit etc.

3) What is a human being? To this we might answer: a highly complex machine, a sleeping god, a person made in the image of God, a descendant of an ape, etc.

4) What happens to a person at death?

5) Why is it possible to know anything at all?

6) How do we know what is right or wrong?

7) What is the meaning of human history?

And finally, one other comment: The fact is that we cannot avoid assuming some answers to such questions. We will adopt either one stance or another. Refusing to adopt an explicit worldview will turn out to be itself a worldview, or at least a philosophical position. In short, we are caught. So long as we live, we will live either the examined life (of one who is aware of and can articulate their worldview) or the unexamined life (of one who is unaware of their worldview).

(Note: the definition and questions above are taken from James W. Sire’s book The Universe Next Door, London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984, pp. 17-21.)

Hopefully it is apparent now why an understanding of worldviews is so foundational: it affects every aspect of our lives, it informs all our opinions, and forms the foundation of any thoughts we have in regard to the nature of the universe and our origins (which is why it is so related to discussion of origins).

In the next post I’ll respond to some of the particular comments made by people the other thread.

---
Reading: Burn Bright by Marianne de Pierres
My writing blog
The Fantasy Writers' Library
12/Oct/05, 11:46 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Riane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 04-2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


Firstly, I’d like to reciprocate in thanking everyone for their thoughtful responses. While there will no doubt be areas where we won’t agree, it’s always good to know that we can agree to disagree.


I think you've misunderstood a little here. It's not a "particular worldview" or Eurocentric, nor certainly an "a priori assumption" to say that the world exists.


I think we may not be quite understanding where the other is coming from here. I didn’t actually say that it is a particular worldview to say that the world exists; I said that it is one part of the naturalistic worldview to say that the natural world is all that exists. In the framework I’ve described above, this presupposition is an answer to the first question about the nature of prime reality.


It is not simply a case of fact vs faith; we both have 'faith' or belief in a certain set of presuppositions, and we will view the facts according to those presuppositions.

No, we don't.


Well, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I am proposing that Sire’s definition of a worldview is the case here – we both have our prior commitments to a certain worldview, and that these come before we assess facts. If you don’t see that as being the case, may I ask specifically how you do see it in relation to Sire’s definition?


And creationism is no more the definitive "Christian view" of how the world began, than evolution is "crude scientism" or "naturalism".


I did not say that creationism is the sum and total of the Christian worldview – only that it is one aspect of a Christian theistic worldview, as would be intelligent design (and of course, some within the Christian worldview do indeed answer the question of origins differently). Also, I only suggested that evolution is one aspect of the naturalistic worldview (although those within the naturalistic worldview may well hold to a different answer to that question about origins).


Remember, evolution happened.


What level of evolution are we talking about here? Micro or macro? Or about origins? Part of the difficulty with discussions of this nature are that the term evolution can be taken to mean many things, so I want to be sure what we are discussing. I don’t dispute micro-evolution (aka natural selection); I do dispute macro-evolution (microbes to man progression).


All credible palaeontology says it happened. The enormous weight of empirical evidence supports it having happened. Large numbers of Christians accept that it happened.


I agree that this would require a different thread, and so I won’t attempt to respond to that here for the simple reason that it would sidetrack the discussion of worldviews.


And the slow collapse of creationism through "Intelligent Design theory" shows that even those who follow the politicised forms of religion that support the undermining of science via the teaching of creationism, are unable to sustain Bishop Usher's contrary position.


I’m not actually aware that creationism is collapsing, or has done so. Do you have sources and statistics supporting that this is the case? Again, I’m not qualified to comment on the political situation in relation to this debate as it is a highly American-centered discussion.

I will say, however, that it does not surprise me in the least that the young-earth creationist position is seen in such an unfavourable light by the intellectual community, and for the reason I mentioned earlier: as the majority of the intellectual community in the West holds to a mainly naturalistic worldview, either consciously or unconsciously, it is little wonder that a theory arising from such an opposing worldview would be shunned. I don’t see it as a case of intelligent design theory undermining science – more foundationally, it opposes the naturalist view of the fundamental nature of reality and ideas about origins, and I see that as being the root of the opposition. When two worldviews come into opposition it goes so much further than the intellectual arena – it goes to the core of the way we view the world and ourselves, and thus is a highly personalized debate for those on both sides of the fence.

(Out of interest, have you read Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box? It discusses Intelligent Design in relation to microbiology, and I believe the debate around the ideas expressed there has been rather controversial.)


Like I say, even "Intelligent Design" theorists (for all that they bluster to the contrary) accept the vast majority of evolutionary theory, and merely tag on an intelligent creator to the beginning.


Do you have sources and stats that have informed that statement? Are there documented studies on the number of scientists who hold to Intelligent Design theory and ‘the vast majority of evolutionary theory’ at the same time?


And full-on Christian creationism is simply absurd. I say this not because of "bias" but because I simply am incredulous that in the 21st century people can actually try to defend a theory that is based on a Bishop's adding-together of the ages of people in the Bible, two centuries ago.


From your worldview, I can see how it would be. From my own of course, it is perfectly reasonable. I would propose that you are indeed speaking from that bias (although this certainly is not something I view as an inherently bad thing). If you do not hold that the Bible is true in any way, then of course I can understand that you would be incredulous about that belief. However, your incredulity hardly nullifies the view, any more than my incredulity at some of the beliefs stemming from a naturalistic worldview nullifies those ideas.


And this is before we go through the fact that there are fossil remains which can be C14 dated to tens of millions of years before Usher believed the world began.


Carbon dating – another topic that could be highly debated, and one which I don’t have the time currently to invest in. We’ll have to leave that for another day.


This simply isn't true. Christian views are just as prevalent within the scientific community as they are within any other.


Really? Again, are there sources and stats to support this view? As far as I’m aware, the proportions of those within the scientific community who are committed to a Christian theistic worldview is quite marginal. Keep in mind also the point made in the previous thread – that although someone may use the label ‘Christian’ for themselves, whether they hold to the worldview attached to that label is played out in their actions more reliably than their words. One might consider themselves within the Christian theistic worldview, but hold that the universe came about solely through naturalistic processes – a presupposition that is not consistent with the worldview presented in the Bible.


The reason that there are no peer-reviewed scientific journals supporting creationism or intelligent design, is that there isn't a shred of evidence for either theory. One (creationism) is simply ridiculous, and the other (intelligent design) is based on a speculative "bolt-on" of design to evolution. Merely on the basis of science as rational enquiry into the universe, neither could stand up to peer review.


Again, I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree here. I do think that there is evidence for both theories, and the reason it is not accepted in the scientific intellectual community is for the reasons outlined above. What concerns me most in any debate of this nature is that there is often no recognition – sometimes by either side – that both are working within a particular worldview and that this impacts on interpretation of ‘facts’.

Although I have not read the following book, I believe it discusses the nature of scientific ideas and revolutions in a manner relevant to this discussion: ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ by Thomas Kuhn, which looks at this history of scientific revolutions (and one chapter in particular focuses on the impact of these revolutions on the worldview of the scientist). It was recommended to me by a literature/philosophy professor last semester, and unfortunately I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. Is anyone on this site aware of it?


Evolution is accepted by large numbers of Christians, not least because it is backed by the vast weight of evidence. There is no reason at all why it can't fit within a Christian worldview, and for many millions, it does.


I don’t dispute that it is backed by some Christians. Whether it is millions or not, I have no way of knowing – and yet again, stats on this would be useful if you could supply them. As to whether it can fit within the Christian theistic framework, I can think of a number of reasons why it doesn’t – and those reasons would be based upon my interpretation of the Bible according to the principles of hermeneutics (which is something I have studied). As I mentioned early, there are obviously cases where the answers to the worldview questions proposed by Sire are answered in a way that supports evolutionary theory, but I would question whether those answers actually align with correct interpretation of the Bible. (And that in itself is another debate also.)


Secondly, creationism and intelligent design are not "the Christian worldview" so much as political battering rams being used to roll back a century of scientific investigation and (more broadly) to attack the boundaries between Church and state. As I said before, I know you're not on the religious right, but it's them who are doing it.


Unfortunately, as you noted, I don’t really fall in that camp and so can’t comment on the situation in the US. Remember though that I did not say creationism and ID are the Christian worldview, but that they are simply parts of it stemming from answers to the worldview questions.


There are countries in W Europe that are less religious, and others that are more religious. The UK is very un-religious, except for in some communities (the Irish communities in Ulster and the Muslim communities across the UK, for instance). By contrast, Spain and Italy and Ireland have much higher levels of religious practice.


Again, note that the label religious does not necessarily align with a theistic worldview. It is actions and words that demonstrate this rather than any religious or social group one might identify with.


Again, there are actually Christians who do agree with gay marriage, and those who don't. I have no problem with either view.


I don’t disagree. Whether those views are actually supported by the theistic framework outlined in the Bible is something I think deserves investigation. Also, a response to the question of ‘Why do you agree/disagree with gay marriage?’ would go a significant way to understanding the worldview a person is coming from, irrespective of whether they label themselves a Christian or otherwise.


The problem I have is with those political organisations who try to codify the views of some Christians into law.


A hypothetical: if I said that I have a problem with those political organizations who try to codify the views of some naturalists into law, what would your response be? Can you see the point I’m trying to make? I see the debate as a case of two opposing worldviews that are on some issues opposed trying to reconcile, and the polemic employed to marginalize the Christian theistic worldview is what I get frustrated with. It is a stacking of the cards against a particular worldview and in favour of another, with that other worldview or worldviews not having been recognized or articulated.

This is why I believe and understanding of worldviews is so important, because as Sire states, it allows for the examined life. Within the intellectual community the Christian theistic worldview is in the minority, and I think this is part of the reason why it has become so necessary for those who hold to that view to become aware of what their presuppositions are – to live examined lives. In general I don’t see a great deal of examination of other worldviews happening – and most likely because these views are part of the hegemony of the intellectual community. One has no need to examine the presupposition one bases their life on until they come in contact with something which seriously opposes that view and moves it toward the minority rather than the majority.


Merely that political-religious groups should not use their power to try and force their morals upon others.


On the opposite hand, I could say that merely political-naturalistic groups should not use their power to force their morals on others. Which of us would be right? Or, more to the point, which is in the majority? In the US that might be the former. In Australia it certainly isn’t the case – and I would propose that in the intellectual community it isn’t either.

Ok, that will have to do for now. Talk about involved responses! I’ll have to respond to the comments by others at a later date – this has just taken me a significant chunk of time. Thanks in advance for your patience.

P.S. Addi: It is good to be here, although my attendance may be intermittent as the semester is currently winding up. I’ve been quite good of late – busy finishing my last semester of study for my degree, and making preparations for doing Education next year. Hopefully, if all goes well, I’ll be a qualified English, Lit and ESL teacher in a couple of years. emoticon


Last edited by:
Riane, 12/Oct/05, 13:30


---
Reading: Burn Bright by Marianne de Pierres
My writing blog
The Fantasy Writers' Library
12/Oct/05, 13:24 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
voltaire Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 197
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


Riane;

I will get back to you in proper detail, I promise. This thread is worth discussing in real detail, and I will devote a good post to address all of your points.

However, as a beginning:

1) You say that you would no more wish to see scientism (what you call naturalism) codified into law. But a gay marriage law would not do that. No Christian who did not approve of gay marriage, would be obliged to enter into such a union if gay marriage were legalised. The same freedom is not afforded to gay couples who wish to marry, whilst the practise remains illegitimate under the law. Therefore, the only co-ercion is being practised by the theocrats who support a ban.

2) Intelligent Design theory, in its very nature, supports evolution. That's what separates it from creationism - this isn't a trick argument, it's just in the very basis of the theory.

3) "Macro"/"Micro" evolution - what you seem to mean is that you don't support natural selection to the fullest.



V

---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt
13/Oct/05, 2:16 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Riane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 04-2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?



The debate we were having here was in regards to specific issue hotly debated within the US today. The US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, guarantees freedom of religion, and a seperation of church and state. In other words, an individual in the US is free to practice any religion they like, and the government can make no ruling, and no law, which uses religion as its backing and justification. Therefore, passing something into law, saying it is morally wrong and a sin, is in direct violation of the US constitution. That's bad.


I do realise that this debate was specifically about an issue currently in debate in the US, and thus my comment was more intended as a tangent (which is why I started this thread) from a particular comment made, rather than a comment to do with the topic itself. I realise there is separation of Church and state – it’s the same in my own country – but the point I was trying to make was that while there may be separation of religion from state, there is no such thing as a decision or law that isn’t based on some kind of value system.


Government (and I'm speaking about the US government, based on my understanding of the constitution), is not about morality. Laws do not, and should not exist to uphold morality. Laws exist to preserve rights.


Laws may well exist to preserve rights, yes. But what are our ideas of what a person’s rights should be based on? Aren’t they based on ideas of what is considered right and wrong? Laws are based not solely on the idea of ‘as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else, it is permissable’ – if we took that idea to it’s extent, then why would there be certain drugs that are illegal (such as heroin)? If a person is only hurting themselves, then surely that is their choice and no one else can interfere? And yet we do have laws against those drugs.

Our ideas about what should be a right and what shouldn’t are based on our morality – on our ideas of right and wrong – and thus the preclusion of any religious system of values from legislation simply means that another, undefined – and ultimately much harder to identify – system of values will take its place, based on a mishmash of naturalistic, humanistic and other worldviews. This is the point I’m trying to make: we may say that our laws do not exist to uphold a particular worldview, but it is impossible to have laws that aren’t based on some kind of worldview. The Christian worldview is easily identifiable because it has a religious label and it is institutionalised. The naturalistic or humanistic worldview is much harder to identify because it isn’t institutionalised, and thus it is something that is incredibly difficult to discuss – heck, most people don’t even realise that they hold a worldview, let alone understand what it is. That’s what concerns me – that if people don’t even realise they have a worldview, they can claim that anyone who thinks differently simply has a distorted or religious view of reality, and that their own view of reality is ‘fact’.


We are all guaranteed certain rights, and laws exist to prohibit dangerous behavior that could (and likely will) infringe on someone's rights. So, unless someone presents a way in which a gay couple getting married violates one of my rights and freedoms, there's no legal justification for it to be outlawed.


Again, I don’t think that laws are simply based on rights and ensuring their non-infringement – at the base there is some kind of value system, whether identified or not.


I also think you are wrong in trying to bring scientific data down to a -so called- "naturalistic worldview" level, so as to compare it (as peer elements) to religious worldviews of any sort.


As I’ve outlined at the top of this thread, I don’t believe it is wrong to bring the debate down to a worldview level – in fact, I think it is imperative that we do so. Scientific data is not an entity in it’s own in that it is always being ‘interpreted’ by the scientist. My concern is what worldview those interpretations are being based on, and as I’ve said before, in the case of the majority of scientists that worldview is a naturalistic one – hence the absolute refusal to consider any interpretation of the evidence that suggests that there could be something beyond the natural world that has impacted upon it.


Scientific data and facts that has been gathered and validated using observation and experiment (the only known scientific means) cannot (nor should they ever) be considered "peers" to any religious stuff, whereas various religious worldviews may be seen as peers to each other.


Yet science often goes beyond what is repeatable and observable to make hypothesis and ideas about what happened in the distant past and what might happen in the future. Evolutionary and origins theories, for example – and thus we have the clash between the religious (specifically Christian) worldview and the naturalistic worldview.


If I were a surgeon and had to perform a kidney transplant operation to three of my patients (one of them being Christian, the other Muslim and the third one Buddhist), I would perform the said operations to all three of them IN THE SAME SCIENTIFIC MANNER, based on the same scientific data, and I wouldn't even dare to think of asking each one of my patients about how this operation should be carried out, according to THEIR religious worldviews!...


I do see the point you’re making, but I don’t agree that it correlates – I’m not talking about science being a worldview, I’m talking about the worldview that underlies that science. In the example you gave, on what basis do you make the decision that you should operate on all three patients? Because you value human life, and you want to see the life of each of these three people preserved? Why do you value human life? Why should each of those people be helped? Your assumptions about the value of human life, irrespective of religious affiliation, is based on your worldview, and that isn’t something you can escape. I’m talking about what lies beneath each human’s idea of reality, and that is something that comes before science.

I don’t know if we can ever come to a point of recognition on this issue, but that’s the nature of a debate, I suppose.


In all, religion and science are NOT peers, therefore when science comes into play, religion MUST remain in the backstage... Otherwise multiple conflicts occur.


No, they aren’t peers – but a religious worldview and a naturalistic worldview are, and thus we need to understand what each entails in order to understand where the other person is coming from.

I know I may sound like I’m harping, but I’ll say it again for good measure: I’m most concerned that we live an examined life rather than an unexamined one, and thus it is imperative that each of us understand exactly what our worldview is, how it changes, and how it impacts on everything we think, say and do.

---
Reading: Burn Bright by Marianne de Pierres
My writing blog
The Fantasy Writers' Library
18/Oct/05, 11:55 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
voltaire Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 197
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


Riane;

Sorry (harping myself now!) but I have to say to you again that the vast weight of real, tangible evidence backs evolution. And the peer-reviewed science that backs it up does not rely on some kind of biased worldview in order to verify this. This is not a matter of two theories with equal weight, it's a matter of scienctific investigation versus religious ideology.

As to laws, they are set up in most western constitutional republics to separate church and state. This is a secular values system that is meant to guarantee religious freedom, whilst at the same time preventing the tyranny of theocratic rule. The day that laws and executive actions begin to be systematically made on the basis of religion (as against individual legislators exercising their beliefs), those boundaries begin to blur. That's why (for instance) powerful conservative religious forces like the US Christian Coalition make me somewhat nervous, as do their more nebulous UK counterparts like Christian Voice.

They have a worldview alright, and it involves things like Christian Voice trying to ban the Koran under new laws on religious hatred once they're introduced in the UK, organising banning campaigns against programmes being broadcast on the BBC, and picketing abortion clinics. I'm not saying that you would agree with such practises, but they are emblematic of the growing political-religious movements within evangelical Christianity. And sadly, these movements shout louder than the rest of the churches do.

On the other hand, I think you will not find secular legislators (whether they do or do not personally have any religious belief) trying to force those who oppose abortion or gay marriage into practising them. That's the crucial difference here.



V


Last edited by:
voltaire, 18/Oct/05, 12:44


---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt
18/Oct/05, 12:43 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Riane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 04-2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


As I said, I'm not so concerned about getting into the gay marriage debate. I will make an observation though, about where I think out different worldviews are influencing our ideas:

~ In my case, my understanding of marriage is very much tied to my Christian worldview. Marriage is something that was created by God as a holy union between a man and a woman, and thus anything outside that design I find hard to agree with. I'm not so concerned with the moral aspect of the question (at least not in this forum, where I think there are more important and productive things to talk about); I'm more concerned that this challenges and in a sense invalidates my foundational view about what marriage is.

~ In your case (and I'm just hazarding a guess here - if I'm wrong please clarify!), it seems that marriage is seen as primarily an institution created by humans, and that there is therefore no basis for considering it wrong based on the activities or sexual orientation of the person. If I was coming from this view, then I would most likely agree with you, but because we see marriage as originating differently, then our views on how it should be implemented are different.

It's important to note here that arguing about whether marriage is a human institution or a divine one may not advance our situation much; what I'm more concerned about (and as I've stated before) is simply that there is recognition of how our respective worldviews impact on the debate. Much of the difficulty in any discussion of moral or human issues derives from a lack of understanding of one's inherent bias and worldview.


what you seem to mean is that you don't support natural selection to the fullest.


This becomes difficult mainly because we are basing our use of the words evolution and natural selection on different definitions. Before getting into this discussion, would you define those terms for me as you understand them? That way I can see how my understanding of them differs.


And the peer-reviewed science that backs it up does not rely on some kind of biased worldview in order to verify this. This is not a matter of two theories with equal weight, it's a matter of scienctific investigation versus religious ideology.


And again, I have to disagree. It is not possible to step outside a worldview and simply assess the facts - a worldview is such that it forms the basis of one's entire understanding of reality, and so whether a scientist realises this or not, their understanding of the issue will always be influenced by that worldview. Anthropology, sociology, even psychology have all come to the recognition that everyone has an inherent bias or worldview that they cannot escape. It is only certain areas of the scientific community that refuse to recognise this, and perhaps partly to do with the fac that this would create a much more level discussion field for the types of issues we have been talking about.


They have a worldview alright, and it involves things like Christian Voice trying to ban the Koran under new laws on religious hatred once they're introduced in the UK, organising banning campaigns against programmes being broadcast on the BBC, and picketing abortion clinics.


You're right - I probably don't agree with much of their actions. I would like to point out, though, that it isn't good practice to judge an entire worldview or group of people based on abuse of the basic tenets of those belief systems. They may twist parts of the Bible to suit their agendas and justify their actions, but any consistent and correct understanding of the Bible on which those beliefs are supposedly based would show that they contradict rather than uphold them. I wouldn't judge the entire legal system based on the actions of a corrupt minority, and I would hope that people would not judge Christianity as a whole based on the actions of those who clearly go against its central tennets.


I think you will not find secular legislators (whether they do or do not personally have any religious belief) trying to force those who oppose abortion or gay marriage into practising them.


And I wouldn't expect that to happen. But here is a hypothetical: if gay marriage laws are passed, and subsequently a Christian minister refuses to marry a couple because this falls outside the Christian understanding of what is a holy marriage, then would it be possible for the couple to sue on the basis of discrimination? I think it would be highly plausible for that to happen, and so it is a curtailing of a freedom on the part of the minister in a sense in that they are no longer able to hold to their view of marriage as one that is valid. By legislating on the issue, there is a potential undermining of the Christian worldview and thus a loss of freedom. Should that not also be a consideration?

I'm not saying this is a cut and dried issue, or that it can be solved in a way that will make all parties happy. I don't think that is possible. What I would like to see, though, is recognition that the Christian worldview is as valid as any other, and that the potential repercussions should at least be considered even if in the end the majority vote is on the opposite side of the fence. It simply frustrates me that certain worldviews are excluded because they are recognised and institutionalised, whereas others go unacknowledged and thus are nearly impossible to challenge.

---
Reading: Burn Bright by Marianne de Pierres
My writing blog
The Fantasy Writers' Library
4/Nov/05, 9:39 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
TimMurphy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 26
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?



Laws may well exist to preserve rights, yes. But what are our ideas of what a person’s rights should be based on? Aren’t they based on ideas of what is considered right and wrong? Laws are based not solely on the idea of ‘as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else, it is permissable’ – if we took that idea to it’s extent, then why would there be certain drugs that are illegal (such as heroin)? If a person is only hurting themselves, then surely that is their choice and no one else can interfere? And yet we do have laws against those drugs.



This is where we get into personal ideological differences. I do not believe it is up to the government to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong." The only things that should be illegal are those which either directly violate someone's rights, or recklessly put members of the public in harm's way (ie, drunk driving.) You specifically mentioned illegal drugs as an example of something that is illegal (and believed by most of society, including myself, to be wrong), as an example. The problem is, you assume I agree that this is the right thing to do. I do not. If an individual (of consenting age, 18/21, whichever), chooses to use illicit drugs, that is their decision, not the governments. I pity them, because they are headed down a path of destruction, but it is their choice. Not mine, and not the governments. There are a lot of things that are illegal, and just plain shouldn't be. But, THIS is an ideological/political debate, and very, very far from the topic. As for this topic, I agree with much of what Voltaire has already stated....religion ain't science, and science ain't religion. Religion is backed by faith, and a belief structure. Science is backed by careful analysis of observable facts, and most importantly, is designed to be changed with the acqusition of new data. It seems kind of silly (no offense) to disregard so much of this carefully studied data, and to disregard it's conclusions, by saying "I understand how your naturalistic world view can see it that way." Yes, I will agree that we all have our own views and biases that we take into the world from our upbringing. But they, much like science, can change over time. As you learn more about the world, your "worldview" changes. So no, you can't escape your worldview, but that worldview is not limited to what you were taught as a youngster. Science seems much more willing to accept that than religion, in my opinion.

Oh, and one more point...you asked if it would be possible for a gay couple to sue a minister refusing to perform a gay marriage, if gay marriage laws were passed. The answer is no. A religious group is not government. They don't have to follow the same rules government does. If a religious group chooses not to perform a ceremony, that is THEIR right. It only matters when the government is involved. THEY have to treat everyone equally.
6/Nov/05, 1:52 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Loud G Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


I don't think the main two worldviews have anything to do with science and religion.

I see these two as part of the same whole, the laws with the spirit. Working together.

The two world views that I think exist are simply:

1. The belief in an afterlife

2. The belief that life and consciousness end with the death of the body.

 would argue that most all phylosophical/ legal/ or other disagreements could be traced to those two worldviews.

All the talk about science is only a tool in an arguement, but not truly even the point.

it all comes down to whether you think death is the end or not.

if it is the end, then all this morality and such is useless.

if it is not, then it all is quite meaningful


very general, I know, but I think that is where it all stems from.

---
Writing: Eriadhin

8/Nov/05, 4:55 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
Riane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 04-2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?



TimMurphy wrote:
I do not believe it is up to the government to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong." The only things that should be illegal are those which either directly violate someone's rights, or recklessly put members of the public in harm's way (ie, drunk driving.)


Yes, but how were those rights founded originally? Our ideas about what someone's rights should be are based on some idea of what is right and wrong. It is wrong to hurt another person, therefore we give people rights and put in place laws to ensure that this does not happen as far as possible. My point is, those rights are based on a worldview and belief system, whether that worldview is acknowledged or not. I would prefer that it is acknowledged, because then we have a better chance of being able to assess the situation.


If an individual (of consenting age, 18/21, whichever), chooses to use illicit drugs, that is their decision, not the governments. I pity them, because they are headed down a path of destruction, but it is their choice. Not mine, and not the governments.


Then is it wrong to have laws that make those drugs illegal? If it is simply the choice of the individual and no one should be able to impose, then why aren't those laws removed? And if they are, then what would be the result? The implications of simply going by the credo 'if it doesn't hurt anyone else then it's ok, and no one can impose their ideas on me' are potentially rather dangerous for both individuals and communities. In a sense, it is heading down the road to anarchy, and I'm sure that's not something we wish to see.


As for this topic, I agree with much of what Voltaire has already stated....religion ain't science, and science ain't religion. Religion is backed by faith, and a belief structure. Science is backed by careful analysis of observable facts, and most importantly, is designed to be changed with the acqusition of new data.


I never claimed that religion was science or vice versa. But let me pose a question: how do you know you can trust the conclusion of empirical science? How do we know that our methods of testing and observation actually line up with reality? How do we know that our scientific conclusions are actually true? Because (and here I'm making a suggestion) we believe they do line up with reality, that the universe is ordered in a way that makes it knowable and testable to our minds, which are capable of perceiving order. But what is that belief based on? The hypothesis that scientific observation and empirical evidence can tell us the truth about the world is itself an untestable idea - it cannot be proven or disproven by the very method it puts forward as the most valid form of truth-discovery.

Perhaps this quote will make the point even clearer: "However successful our scientific explanations may be, they always have certain starting assumptions built in. For example, an explanation of some phenomenon in terms of physics presupposes the validity of the laws of physics... But one can ask where these laws came from in the first place. One could even question the origin of logic upon which all scientific reasoning is founded. Sooner or later we all have to accept something as given, whether it is God, or logic, or a set of laws, or some other foundation for existence. Thus 'ultimate' questions will always lie beyond the scope of empirical science as it is usually defined." (Paul Davies)


It seems kind of silly (no offense) to disregard so much of this carefully studied data, and to disregard it's conclusions, by saying "I understand how your naturalistic world view can see it that way."


I'm not exactly sure what data we're referring to in particular here, but I hope that the comments above show that understanding the way a worldview works and influences scientific interpretations is hardly a cop-out. I'm not disregarding the conclusions that are based on that worldview - I'm assessing them as critically as I can and coming to the conclusion that I don't agree. If I was simply disregarding it, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.


As you learn more about the world, your "worldview" changes. So no, you can't escape your worldview, but that worldview is not limited to what you were taught as a youngster. Science seems much more willing to accept that than religion, in my opinion.


I absolutely agree that as we grow and change, our worldview will shift and change also. However, there is again a false analogy - science is not a worldview, it is a tool. I could make the same comment about those committed to materialism or naturalism if I wished. Those committed to particular religious worldviews are no different to those committed to non-religious worldviews in that we both are very determined to hold to our ideas about reality, life and humanity. This committment is hardly a bad thing - a worldview is what forms the foundation for the way we live, and so it seems quite reasonable to me to committ to a worldview that answers my questions in a meaningful way, and doesn't threaten to change at the drop of a hat.

One other point also: while it may well be true that some people hold their religious views because that is simply the way they were brought up, that is certainly not the case for all who do hold such beliefs. The suggestion that someone holds religious beliefs simply because that was the way they were socialised is hardly an accurate assessment of the situation. The very fact that we are having this conversation should show that there are people of religious worldviews who are thinking, intelligent beings who didn't drop of their brain at the door of a church. (I know you didn't imply all of that - I was simply elaborating on your comment and speaking to one particular view of religion that seems to crop up quite a bit.)


Oh, and one more point...you asked if it would be possible for a gay couple to sue a minister refusing to perform a gay marriage, if gay marriage laws were passed. The answer is no. A religious group is not government. They don't have to follow the same rules government does. If a religious group chooses not to perform a ceremony, that is THEIR right. It only matters when the government is involved. THEY have to treat everyone equally.


How can that be guaranteed though? Would there be specific parts of the legislation that state that a person can refuse to marry a gay couple if it goes against the beliefs of their particular religion? Not being a US citizen, I don't really know about the particulars, but it seems they are questions that are at least worth asking.

---
Reading: Burn Bright by Marianne de Pierres
My writing blog
The Fantasy Writers' Library
8/Nov/05, 5:37 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
voltaire Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 197
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


Paul Davies is talking about science's ability to answer questions like "why are we here", not "how did evolution happen". He's not touting religion as a direct counter-position to science - he's a scientist himself.

And the answer to your other point is, why should someone who wants to marry a gay couple be banned from doing so, just because it offends someone else's religious beliefs?

Your point about people being obliged to marry gay people when they don't want to simply doesn't fly. Making something legal is not the same as making it compulsory.



V


---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-William Pitt
9/Nov/05, 9:15 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?



Riane wrote:

Yes, but how were those rights founded originally? Our ideas about what someone's rights should be are based on some idea of what is right and wrong.




In America, those rights were originally founded based on the Social Contract Theory. It is quite possible for our system of government to exist and flourish with no consideration of religious ideals (other than protecting each individual's right to practice). In fact, beyond being possible, it's the entire point of the first amendment and the original founding of our system of government.


It is wrong to hurt another person, therefore we give people rights and put in place laws to ensure that this does not happen as far as possible.



Actually, under the Social Contract Theory, that is not illegal based on being wrong. Social Contract philosophies get pretty involved, but the grossly overgeneralized version for purposes of messageboard posting is basically that the government derives power from the will of the people, who agree to give up certain rights/abilities in order to co-exist successfully as a society and avoid reverting to the "state of nature." The foundation is protection of property and life. The point is supposed to be the people give up as few rights as possible to successfully co-exist as a civilization. "Might makes right" - ie, hurting others - does not allow for peaceful co-existance, so we give up our right to take from those who are weaker than us in order to be protected from those who are stronger than us - and to live as a social group. Absolutely no religious ideals are needed.

As I said, that's the simplified version.

You're a bright lady, with the thorough knowledge and understanding of Christian texts. As such, you are more than capable of reading and understanding the social contract philosphers. Even if you didn't agree with it, I suspect you'd find it to be pretty interesting. Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau (sp?) are the basics. You'll probably like Hobbes best out of those from a spiritual perspective, although I disagree with some of his conclusions regarding why "the people" should follow a monarch. My personal favorite of that group is Locke. There's others as well. Ideally, if you could find a really good teacher to take a political philosophy class with, I think you'd really enjoy it. Unfortunately, if you got a bad teacher, you wouldn't like it at all, and it's hard to know in advance who you're going to get. I got very lucky and took political philosphy from a professor who was incredibly well-versed and well-read and just in general incredibly intelligent.

 

The hypothesis that scientific observation and empirical evidence can tell us the truth about the world is itself an untestable idea - it cannot be proven or disproven by the very method it puts forward as the most valid form of truth-discovery.



Which leaves us with no logical alternative other than the Social Contract Theory. Otherwise, one group will try to dominate the other with their "reality". In short, so long as we do not directly victimize another, we all have the right to our subjective realities.






How can that be guaranteed though? Would there be specific parts of the legislation that state that a person can refuse to marry a gay couple if it goes against the beliefs of their particular religion? Not being a US citizen, I don't really know about the particulars, but it seems they are questions that are at least worth asking.



That's already guaranteed. A minister can refuse to marry a straight couple if he doesn't feel they fit in with his view of the faith. That is part of the guaranteed religious freedom in this country.
10/Nov/05, 0:04 Link to this post PM 
 
TimMurphy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 26
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


Thanks Addi! You helped to clear up my point.
11/Nov/05, 17:43 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


 emoticon

I shall bask in the appreciation of my babbling on... emoticon
17/Nov/05, 21:47 Link to this post PM 
 
Riane Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 04-2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?



In America, those rights were originally founded based on the Social Contract Theory.


My question then would be: who decided that the Social Contract Theory was the best theory? And why? What foundational values did they base this decision on? (That is, what did they use to decide that the Social Contract Theory was the best out of a raft of choices?)

Social Contract philosophies get pretty involved, but the grossly overgeneralized version for purposes of messageboard posting is basically that the government derives power from the will of the people, who agree to give up certain rights/abilities in order to co-exist successfully as a society and avoid reverting to the "state of nature." The foundation is protection of property and life.


Firstly, a thankyou for that explanation. It does make things somewhat clearer, although I still have some questions.

Why should people strive to avoid reverting to the 'state of nature'? Why should we want to protect property and life? Why are those things important? Not having read the theories themselves, I know there may well be answers to those questions - but there may not. I'm much more concerned with the answer to 'why' questions (both in this case and more generally), and it would be interesting to find out for this particular theory/philosophy.

I have heard of Locke and Rousseau, and I'll do my best to get my hands on a copy of their writing (although I don't like my chances of doing so outside of the Uni semester - public libraries are pretty shocking around here). I'm reluctant to trust internet sites on these kind of subjects, because you never quite know if what you're getting is the real deal. :)

Which leaves us with no logical alternative other than the Social Contract Theory. Otherwise, one group will try to dominate the other with their "reality".


But isn't Social Contract Theory part of someone's reality? Or is it a transcendent theory - something that sits beyond personal opinion and ideals?

That's already guaranteed. A minister can refuse to marry a straight couple if he doesn't feel they fit in with his view of the faith.


Thanks for clarifying that. :) I still have reservations, but as I don't live in the country and don't know enough about the issue, I'm going to bow out of that specific aspect of the discussion.

---
Reading: Burn Bright by Marianne de Pierres
My writing blog
The Fantasy Writers' Library
19/Nov/05, 0:27 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Loud G Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?



Addi wrote:

That's already guaranteed. A minister can refuse to marry a straight couple if he doesn't feel they fit in with his view of the faith. That is part of the guaranteed religious freedom in this country.



ONe would think. But legislation doesn't allow muslims to have multiple wives, so obviously religious freedom is not quite as free. Not that I'm suggesting we all go and make polygamy legal, but it is a point where the govt has declared what a religion can or can't do.

---
Writing: Eriadhin

19/Nov/05, 0:47 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
TimMurphy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 26
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


Loud G...they government will not honor more than one marriage, meaning they will not offer legal benefits for more than one couple....easily justified by the sheer amount it would cost if the government would recognize polygamy. However, there is no law against a religious group marrying a man to multiple wives, or for those people to leave together in a polygamous relationship. It can be recognized by their community, their church, and their family, just not by the government. Can't afford to allow for that (imagine all the people who would get married strictly for tax purposes, if you could have more than one spouse!)
19/Nov/05, 1:37 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Loud G Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 01-2005
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 273
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


actually, I believe it is outlawed even for churches to perform.

The only people I know of who do it get around the issue by getting a divorce and marrying another and still living with both.

Churches are not allowed to do it.


I understand the monetary reasoning, and I definitely am not saying we should allow it, but I am saying that that is one way in which the govt has stepped into the freedom of religion realm.


Last edited by:
Loud G, 19/Nov/05, 22:28


---
Writing: Eriadhin

19/Nov/05, 18:14 Link to this post Email   PM  AIM  Blog
 
TimMurphy Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 09-2005
Posts: 26
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


If a church is not allowed to perform a polygamist ceremony, than that is government overstepping its bounds, clearly.
19/Nov/05, 20:58 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Worldviews: what on earth are they?


I agree. Polygamy should be legal.
21/Nov/05, 9:05 Link to this post PM 
 


Add Reply






You are not logged in (LOGIN)