Where does our world view come from?

[St. SteVen]

But, here in 21st century America, we glorify individualism and non-conformity. And we end up "Bowling Alone".

So true.
And we end up "Bowling Alone". - LOL

/

 

[MatthewG]

Think of how communities work. They propagate their worldviews through education, social conditioning, reward-punishment, etc. Also remember that for most of history and in most cultures, membership in a community was and is necessary for survival in a hostile world.

But, here in 21st century America, we glorify individualism and non-conformity. And we end up "Bowling Alone".

Does that make it your job to correct? Would rather live in a community with a fencing and the community or would you rather have freedom of your own choice ?

I don’t think about these things all that often. People do what people do just as you do what you choose to do, why would they’re problems effect me? Especially if it’s not something coming to ask me questions about the problem?

Do you call up friends or your wife and set a bowling date up with them? Most of my own friends are drug addicts and they don’t like to move around a lot.

 

[Augustin56]

As you're suggesting, and as I suggested, the contents of the circles and the size of them will vary from person to person. Alas, for many people, the Religion circle should be separated from the others - it isn't even INFORMED by Philosophy or Science. Indeed, it's almost empty, void of thought or introspection. Many people would simply replace the Religion circle with a Bible circle and erect walls separating it from Science and Philosophy.

Actually, virtually all sages from all religions, and even a fair number of scientists, insist that Intuition is the route to the highest form of knowledge. Not some spooky sixth sense but actually the route to the highest form of knowledge. I've been struck by how often this point is made in my reading.

Descartes was simply exploring what he could actually KNOW. Consistent with Kant, it is undeniably true that we do not experience Reality. What we experience is filtered through our senses and interpreted by our brains. Is the reality of an orange what we perceive, what it looks like under an electron microscope or what quantum physics suggests it is? Rationalism doesn't separate "reason" and "reality." It teaches that our convictions about reality should be based on reason and knowledge (including, I would say, intuition) rather than religious belief or emotional response.

But the issue is that reality is not created by our minds. Our job is to conform our minds to reality. We can certainly know and understand some objective truths. The degree that we are able to do so, is the degree that we have truth. To state that we cannot know truth is completely incorrect. Kant claimed that there is no way we can ultimately know reality. Descartes' claim actually cuts us off from reality as being the foundation for our knowledge of the truth. Both lead us into many of the problems we have today, where men can claim they are women, women claim they are men, gender is fluid, etc., etc.

 

[O'Darby]

But the issue is that reality is not created by our minds. Our job is to conform our minds to reality. We can certainly know and understand some objective truths. The degree that we are able to do so, is the degree that we have truth. To state that we cannot know truth is completely incorrect. Kant claimed that there is no way we can ultimately know reality. Descartes' claim actually cuts us off from reality as being the foundation for our knowledge of the truth. Both lead us into many of the problems we have today, where men can claim they are women, women claim they are men, gender is fluid, etc., etc.

I don't see how the basic thrust of Rationalism leads to the consequences you're suggesting. Yes, there is some ontological Realty that is independent of our minds and senses. Our minds and senses filter this Reality, so we can never completely apprehend it as it Ontologically Is. But certainly, we have to believe that God blessed us with minds and senses capable of apprehending "enough" of Reality - they aren't completely and utterly deceiving us. So we can know Truth to the degree that God wants us to know it and have confidence in what our minds and senses tell us (assuming they are operating properly, which is a large assumption on these forums!).

What would be the alternative? That's the point of Rationalism. It is likelier to bring us closer to Truth than are emotions or abstract religious beliefs. I can certainly see how you might view Rationalism as the first step toward Modernism, Postmodernism, Post-Postmodernism and whatever stage we're at these days, but I don't see Rationalism per se as a problem. Again, what would be the superior alternative?

 

[Augustin56]

I don't see how the basic thrust of Rationalism leads to the consequences you're suggesting. Yes, there is some ontological Realty that is independent of our minds and senses. Our minds and senses filter this Reality, so we can never completely apprehend it as it Ontologically Is. But certainly, we have to believe that God blessed us with minds and senses capable of apprehending "enough" of Reality - they aren't completely and utterly deceiving us. So we can know Truth to the degree that God wants us to know it and have confidence in what our minds and senses tell us (assuming they are operating properly, which is a large assumption on these forums!).

What would be the alternative? That's the point of Rationalism. It is likelier to bring us closer to Truth than are emotions or abstract religious beliefs. I can certainly see how you might view Rationalism as the first step toward Modernism, Postmodernism, Post-Postmodernism and whatever stage we're at these days, but I don't see Rationalism per se as a problem. Again, what would be the superior alternative?

You brought up an interesting point with regard to emotions, etc. There was a influential guy named Frederick Schliermarker, who said that religion was primarily nothing more than an emotional experience. I think this is related to why so many young people are abandoning Christ in our day. If religion was nothing more than emotions, then why bother going to church? They can get far more emotions by playing their video games, etc.

The abstract, however, is an important part of religious beliefs. That's why we have the new atheists mocking us for believing in a "cloud god" or some such foolishness. When little children go to school, in the early years, they are not fully capable of abstract thought. That's why the teacher doesn't come in and start with 2 + 2 = 4. They would just look at her with blank stares, not understanding. She starts with, "Well, if I have two apples, and Johnny gives me two more apples, how many apples do I have." That, they can understand, since it's related to something concrete. The same applies to the faith. Parents teach their young children about God "up there" as if He is sitting on a cloud. The problem is, they never get beyond that elementary, limited understanding of God. I like to tell these atheists, "Well, I don't believe in the God you don't believe in, either." God is not one more cause within the universe, but is the very essence of being itself. Okay, I'm digressing... But I think you get my point.

 

[O'Darby]

You brought up an interesting point with regard to emotions, etc. There was a influential guy named Frederick Schliermarker, who said that religion was primarily nothing more than an emotional experience. I think this is related to why so many young people are abandoning Christ in our day. If religion was nothing more than emotions, then why bother going to church? They can get far more emotions by playing their video games, etc.

The abstract, however, is an important part of religious beliefs. That's why we have the new atheists mocking us for believing in a "cloud god" or some such foolishness. When little children go to school, in the early years, they are not fully capable of abstract thought. That's why the teacher doesn't come in and start with 2 + 2 = 4. They would just look at her with blank stares, not understanding. She starts with, "Well, if I have two apples, and Johnny gives me two more apples, how many apples do I have." That, they can understand, since it's related to something concrete. The same applies to the faith. Parents teach their young children about God "up there" as if He is sitting on a cloud. The problem is, they never get beyond that elementary, limited understanding of God. I like to tell these atheists, "Well, I don't believe in the God you don't believe in, either." God is not one more cause within the universe, but is the very essence of being itself. Okay, I'm digressing... But I think you get my point.

Oh, yes, I definitely get it. I have read a bit of Schleiermacher. FWIW, here is "What I learned from the atheists."

What I Learned From the Atheists

Lessons from a decade of dialoguing with internet atheists.

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Augustin56]

Oh, yes, I definitely get it. I have read a bit of Schleiermacher. FWIW, here is "What I learned from the atheists."

What I Learned From the Atheists

Lessons from a decade of dialoguing with internet atheists.

www.christianityboard.com

Well, kudos to you! I wouldn't have had the patience or time to be in such an atheist room for very long. I would probably have shaken the dust off my sandals and moved on pretty early on.

 

[St. SteVen]

I like to tell these atheists, "Well, I don't believe in the God you don't believe in, either."

Agree. That's about the best thing you could say to an atheist if you want to earn some trust.

/