In a message dated April 20, 1998, HOWARD8984 writes:

Feel free to disagree.

I agree that all men hold to (at least one) worldview, and that this fact is inescapable. To quote Ayn Rand:

Basically, everything we think, feel, do, create, and react to is a consequence of a 'worldview', or philosophy. Unfortunately, most individuals have not chosen to examine their own philosophical premises in explicit terms, and thus, as Rand suggests, their subconscious minds are plagued by the junk heap she describes. Such a junk heap is inevitable if one does not learn to question what he hears or is taught, and accepts allegations and assertions indiscriminately, without appeal to the standard of reason, and the contextual nature of knowledge itself.

Religion is notorious for its philosophy so derived. When one is commanded to accept knowledge claims on faith, one forfeits the right to his own mind, and all access to objectivity. When one accepts a religious philosophy, one is taught that to question it is morally reprehensible, a 'sin', and thus furthers one from reality and genuine virtue even more. When one resents others questioning his religion, he often sets out to argue on behalf of his doctrine, which he will defend at any cost, even at the cost of his highest value: his mind, which already he has allowed to shrivel to the point of a hollow shell, wherein almost all humanity is lost.

The more serious one takes his philosophy, and the more consistently he endeavors to practice it, the more pronounced will its consequences take shape in his life. When that philosophy is based on the arbitrary assertions of a religious worldview, those consequences spell only death for man. A perfect example of this kind of dreadful philosophy taken to its logical conclusion is the fate of the 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult in San Diego county in March of 1997. This is the fate of any errant philosophy, whether theistic or atheistic in nature, when taken to its logical conclusion in theory and in practice.

The first traits of a worldview are not values-judgments - which belong to the philosophical province of morality, but an assessment of reality, existence and nature. This is the task of metaphysics, which is the foundation of a philosophy, and as such, metaphysics is the beginning of a worldview. However, much of the time, the metaphysical assessments man has are often unconsciously held, and thus one usually does not readily identify them as the premises to his convictions, principles, conclusions and values he holds. One cannot come to hold values without a metaphysical assessment of reality and man's nature. Holding values-judgments presumes that man is capable of holding values-judgments, that he has a reason to hold them (that values have a role in his life), and that he has the capacity to choose his values.

One erroneous presumption - and Howard's statement above reveals this - is that one's philosophy begins with the province of morality. This evades the fact that morality as a philosophical discipline is dependent on both metaphysics (the study of reality, existence and nature, etc.) and epistemology (the study of the nature of knowledge). All moral systems, and consequently all values-judgments, presuppose - either consciously or unconsciously, either deliberately or randomly, either by choice or by "philosophic inheritance" - metaphysical and epistemological bases.

Think of philosophy as a whole like you would a five-storied building: the first floor is as the foundation of philosophy: this is the branch of metaphysic. The second story, which is built on the first story (metaphysics) is epistemology: the study of the nature of knowledge. Then comes the third floor, which is like the third branch of philosophy: morality, which is a system of values which guides man's choices and actions. The fourth floor is equal to the fourth branch of a philosophy, which is politics, which is defined as the application of morality to interpersonal relationships. The fifth floor is like the fifth branch of philosophy, esthetics, which is the study of art, which is based primarily on metaphysics, epistemology and morality.

Now that we can see the proper structural/conceptual relationships of the basic branches of philosophy, ask yourself: why would anyone start building his house at the third story? You wouldn't do so if you were building a real house, why would you do that with he guiding philosophy of your own mind? Just as one does not begin his study of mathematics with the study of calculus, but with basic arithmetic, so should one not try to establish his philosophy on baseless values-judgments.

Religion, as it does not teach man to think deeply about his philosophy until he attempts to defend it, attempts just this approach when it comes to building it. Therefore, the conclusions it reaches and the doctrines it informs can only be likened to a house built from the sky down to the earth.

It was mentioned that science goes "from the seen to the unseen", i.e., from the known to the unknown; Religion, however, posits the unknown and the unseen to explain the known and the seen. Any philosophy so derived can only cause enormous, lethal problems for man. Any philosophy so informed can only be dismissed as subjective and irrational.

Tindrbox

_________________________________