Re: virus: materialism and other worldviews

sodom (
Sat, 20 Feb 1999 08:55:31 -0500

That is real good - thanks the the leap we needed.

So, peaple go off of base assumptions "killing is bad" (an emotional powerhouse)

then when a situation comes along where "killing is bad" is a root assumtion, if you have the evidence on the killing, you can determine if "killing was bad" in this case. Assisted suicide is a good example. I for one feel that suicide is the choice of a person. A Catholic will disagree.

Catholic Root

Doctor kills patient

"Killing is bad"

"God is Real and condems suicide" View: Assisted suicide is bad, Doctor is a killer and patient will go to hell

My view

Doctor Kills Patient

"killing is bad"

        "Personal freedom is god - patient was suffering"
            "compassion for fellow being is good"
View: Doctor is merciful, problem solved.

So, as a guess, how many "base assumptions" hold our worldviews together? a million, 500?

Bill Roh

Robin Faichney wrote:

> In message <001801be5ca4$85647da0$e2194018@CS1000568-A.cgno1.ab.wave.hom
>>, David McFadzean <> writes
> >
> >Given that worldviews are inconsistent,
> >how can you tell when there are 2 or more? The inconsistency
> >criterion might not be a feasible boundary to slice them up.
> >Does that make any more sense?
> Yes, but I can't answer it. "Worldview" is not a well
> defined term, and I doubt that there is any universally
> correct way to slice them up. What I've been meaning by
> it -- and I hope this accords with most others here --
> though I never really thought it out before -- is: if
> it's based on a different set of assumptions, it's a
> different worldview. Hey, I just came up with the
> correct way to slice them! Didn't I?
> --
> Robin