Thread: Worldviews

I have a very scientific view of the universe, especially with regard to its origins. I'm an atheist and probably wouldn't worship God if he did exist. Life is a very improbable event that was lucky to even exist, especially in the form it does now (sapience etc.). Because of this, it is to be cherished above all else and protected at all costs. And that's a general view of how I regard practically everything, though if anyone has any questions about this (I hope I'm not sounding presumptuous or arrogant, here), feel free to ask.

I'm a pretty hardcore existentialist and a huge fan of absurdism, to draw some contrast to splodeymissile. I believe we choose what we want to be significant, and if one wants to believe that because sapience is so rare it should be protected at all costs, I'm in no position to judge but I don't believe that significance is given inherently. I think when a snowflake falls in our palm it's also incredibly rare and impossible to repeat, and if we scramble to preserve it based on its rarity we actually miss the opportunity to fully enjoy it while it's here. We distract ourselves from the experience of this precious world through our attachment to the conceptualization of the preciousness of it.

In my opinion, life is a dance, I am both the dancer and the dance itself as my skin is a distinction set as arbitrarily as two colors on a spectrum. Good for maps and models, but based on no distinction inherent in reality itself. This also comes down to a trick of our language; as Alan Watts would say we think in terms of subject and action rather than seeing the act as a whole.

If I were to classify worldviews into three basic philosophies, it'd be materialism, transcendentalism and magicalism. Materialism follows material causality with fixed laws and assumes that if we could account for all the finite details of complexity we could predict outcomes, transcendentalism excuses phenomena through intervention and assumes outcomes are in the hands of some intervening force and magicalism sees the universe as a constantly evolving and developing flow of information and assumes outcomes are subject to an emergent reality of infinite detail and potential. I fall into the latter category.

hmm...two things.

Splodeymissile, what do you mean by, "...wouldn't worship God even if he did exist." ? That kind of confuses me.

Original Poster, I recognize the beauty of your worldview, but there are a couple of things I'm confused about. For example, if you are everything, and everything is you, shouldn't you be horrified at yourself? If this is so, you are a black hole, destroying everything in your path. You are Hitler and Stalin and Julius Caesar. Help me understand this.

I have an empty world view. I simply take the world as it appears. I always try to be careful to not make statements that cannot be related back to experience, because I don't trust these statements to have any meaningful content.

oh, forgot to include some things.

On Judgement Day (yes, sin matters) God will reward human beings on their actions, and afterwards remake creation without borders, there will be no boundary between Physical, Cognitive and Spiritual.

There is just one world, the natural world. Anything that exists is a part of the natural world. So basically when you say there are other realms, it makes me automatically think they don't exist. If the spiritual world existed, then you should be able to influence it from the physical world. In fact, you just said that they were all connected since one can influence the other. If that was the case, what makes them separate?

Awareness separates them. You mainly experience the Physical realm, but you are using the Cognitive to experience it. Thing is, you're not consciously doing so, almost like breathing. You are also in the Spiritual realm, but this you experience the least. I'm not sure but I think gut feelings and your conscience is in the spiritual. for your comments. i mean this without sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Nightspren

Splodeymissile, what do you mean by, "...wouldn't worship God even if he did exist." ? That kind of confuses me.

Can't believe I missed this. Hope you don't mind a late reply. Anyways, I don't believe anything short of perfection should be worshiped and the Gods I've seen from various religions don't fulfill that criteria, I'm afraid. The Monad comes close, though. If a perfect God did exist, I doubt it would want to be worshiped and may even abhor the practice, so, why bother? I could be wrong on this definition of perfect, though, but as it stands, no worship from me.

a mystery better left unsolved.