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
> e.com>, David McFadzean <morpheus@lucifer.com> 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