Damian,
The notion of ‘initial assumptions’ is a good way of putting it – especially as you’ve put it; that we all make these assumptions. That’s why I’m interested in talking about ‘worldviews’, because I think they are the domain of where (and how, etc.) such assumptions are made…

All this pretty much hinges on our starting assumptions. If we start with the assumption that there is ‘magic’ behind it all we’ll arrive at a very different way of ‘doing’ values because we’re likely to ascribe values as an ethereal aspect of life. If we start with the assumption that we live (like Madonna) in a material world then it’s possible we may strike a mystery that leads us to believe in some non-material force out there but if not, our way of ‘doing’ values will be different.

If you start with the assumption of ‘magic’ there is no way you can ever ‘do’ values appropriately if it in fact turns out that everything is made of just matter. But if you start with a naturalistic assumption you could end up either side of the fence depending on what the evidence shows.

This is where I agree with Heraclides; using the scientific method to form a starting point will better inform our worldview than using magical thinking. And I believe that philosophy that is not firmly grounded in scientific evidence will never serve to keep erroneous magical thinking on the straight and narrow. (I can give examples if you require).

Dale, we’ve talked about this before in person, if we take the real-world example of the issue of whether it is ethical to take the morning after pill (i.e. a pill that stops a fertilised egg from attaching, causing early abortion) our way of ‘doing’ values/ethics is very different.

Have a go at expressing an ethical view from your current Christian worldview on this topic and then have a go (it might be a little bit difficult) using a purely naturalistic worldview. If my hunch is right you will end up with two very different ethical answers — how do we know which is the correct one? Without dealing with the validity of our initial assumptions we’re never going to see eye-to-eye on how to express our values when our initial assumptions cause them to differ.

All I asked in post 24, aside from not treating me condescendingly (which you’ve done again), was for you to recognise your part in it. With all respect, you do have faults. I did give a little back of what you gave me, of course, but I told you I was doing that quite openly so it wouldn’t be sneaky or back-handed.

try harder to see what others’ are saying, not what you think.

Dale said (immediately before Heraclides got ‘frustrated’):

I think I’m hearing you now. Correct me if I’ve got you wrong again… …(I’ll leave that there – lest I’ve still not understood you)… …I hope I’m at least reading you as you intend…

Yeah… right… I’m not trying to understand you at all…

Ken,
Good points. Cheers.

“My only problem with your proposed ‘idealist’/’materialist’ definitions (as you’ll probably guess) is that defining one as ‘reality’-based, implies that it’s the only/most ‘real’ one.”

For someone to talk about world views doesn’t mean that have to agree with specific ones. That would just be taking sides and not allowing the opponent to exist. (That was your problem with defining ‘materialist’). It’s like the referee playing for one side. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree with my concept of reality – you have to accept the existence of that world view. Otherwise you rule yourself out of the discussion. And Vice Versa – I can’t define your world view for you (that’s why I am hesitant to use terms like ‘idealist’ which I have otherwise found quite understandable in my early dabbling with philosophy).

You are not going to get the “common ground” you aspire to – you can’t have common ground between two diametrically opposed methods by definition. Otherwise, why bother with giving them names or considering them different.

Perhaps, rather than trying to define a ‘materialist’ or ‘reality-based’ world view (which you obviously don’t hold and therefore won’t have success in) you should concentrate on defining what you think is acceptable for the contrary ‘idealist’, ‘revelation-based’ or ‘authority-based’ world view. I certainly would want to define that for you.

However, I look forward to a post on ‘world views’ – hopefully with a more workable definition than the Wikipedia one.

I wasn’t caricaturing your view, I was following where what you wrote lead to. Lirone made a similar point as to what I was making.

Lirone:

I would add “biology” to the experiences, to avoid accidentally giving the impression of meaning to start with new-born infants as some kind of tabla rasa. Cognitive neuroscientists in general don’t seem to think much of that concept! (And I concur.)

Damian:

I agree I’m frustrated with Dale’s replies. I don’t enjoy having my words fed back to me in some other meaning, especially late at night! I’d prefer people read posts 6 & 9 for what I wrote and realise that Dale’s reply to them went off in a tangent for reasons I can’t entirely make out (although I can make guesses from previous experience). In particular, I (now) have an impression of his replies trying to run ahead in the argument, which is ironic (to me) as that has the effect of running around a key point of my posts (!): it seems to me that you need to understand the founding issues first. (Possibly Dale already has an argument, or “model” in Ken’s words.)

His replies also put forward some assertions that I believe only really hold true in the context of pure philosophy, a context I wasn’t writing within.

I asked the question I did because I hoped as an exercise it’d make clear to him why I thought understanding the underlying issues first mattered. His reply turned inverted his original point that brought that question.

It seems clear to me if you don’t understand the underlying things first, the whole exercise will become limited to abstract philosophy in a way that’s not of practical use to anyone (as I tried to say in post 9). That’s pretty much all I want to say for now.