Sunday, May 24, 2009

Ken Samples describes what a world-view is

Do you have one? Is it consistently put together? Or is it a hodgepodge from various contradictory sources?


Edwardtbabinski said...

Yes, I have a world view.

I see humanity living on a single planet among 8 or 9 uninhabited ones, and I see a cosmos with colliding galaxies, black holes, and on our little planet I see earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and floods, poisonous bacteria and parasites. And I see living things dying all the time. I do not know how we got here, but it does appear we're going to die, as we see it happening to everything, everyone around us. We see the fragility of life in this cosmos.

Some say that before this cosmos was born there was a beautiful compassionate God who had it in his mind to create a perfect cosmos but something went wrong, so we wound up with this cosmos. These same people say everything will be alright in the end, at least for some humans who will live forever.

But I like to remind these people to look around at what they actually see and experience on this planet here and now. That's the prima facia evidence they have in front of them every day, while every story and dream of a perfection that existed before this cosmos, or a perfection that will exist after it, remains less than prima facia evidence.

If we saw people popping out of graves, and could interview such early risers on TV, or even just interview some ghosts on TV, then we would have different prima facia evidence to contend with.

As things stand, when it comes to stories concerning past perfection or future perfection, I have more questions than answers.

Such a questioning world view doesn't make me joyful nor popular. It just means I'm asking questions that seem the most obvious in light of the prima facia evidence.

Maybe the distant past was perfect, maybe the distant future will be, at least perfect for some humans. But such questions remain behind a metaphysical curtain that I don't claim to be able to see through even with the aid of "inspired holy books," which themselves were composed during ancient times by ancient men I never met, telling fabulous tales of miracles I never saw--tales only told in collections of writings composed by and for particular tribes or groups of believers.

The N.T. was composed after the intertestamental period when the notion of Satan took wing big time (he's hardly mentioned throughout the O.T., where the word, "satan" simply means "accuser," and is applied to men as well as to an angel of God (in the Balaam story), and who has no trouble gaining entrance to God's court as well, serving as God's prosecuting attorney), along with tales of eternal punishment and eternal bliss, and end times expectations. That was the intertestamental period. That was the milieu of the N.T. writings. Little wonder they came out as they did.

Gordon Knight said...

I see the universe as a system of minds or spirits, rather like Leibniz' monads (but with windows,e.g. interaction). The phenomenal world of experience is the result of this interaction. There is no substance but spirit.
The belief in mind independent matter is a belief "strangely prevalent among men" (to quote good Bishop Berkeley) but in then unintelligible. The only genuine cause is agent causation (this is a sort of causation which we have direct, introspective evidence for).

God, is the super spirit, ultimately responsible for the existence of the world (the system of spirits), but not determining of them. The relation we have with God is a genuine relationship, a give and take. The way the universe is results neither soley from divine decree nor the action of finite spirits, but the partnership of both

How's that for a world view?