A clash of worldviews

An interesting post at Telic Thoughts, a blog that debates issues of evolution, got me thinking. But oddly enough, it did not get me thinking about evolution. Instead it got me thinking about thinking itself.

Here's the gist of the report:

William Provine is the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. So what does this representative of the mainstream say? At a Darwin Day event, he laid out his views about the meaning of evolution:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

What interested me about this report was not Provine's view of the philosophical implications of Darwinism, but the range of comments the post elicited - 102 at last count. I did not read all these comments, but I skimmed them, and in doing so, I realized what a waste of time it is to debate an issue like this.

The simple truth is that some people will accept Provine's opinion and others will reject it - and the two sides will never communicate effectively with each other. They will merely talk past each other in an endless debate, which is really a non-debate because nothing is ever resolved.

For instance, I could easily respond to each of Provine's points: 1) Biological evolution does not rule out God, since evolution might be the mechanism God uses to bring higher life forms into existence. 2) Biological evolution does not rule out life after death; in fact, Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer with Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, was convinced that consciousness survives death. 3) Biological evolution has no relevance to the question of whether or not objective ethical foundations exist, unless one assumes that all human behavior is dictated by evolution, a position that goes far beyond Darwinism. 4) Biological evolution has nothing to say about the meaning of life. 5) Biological evolution does not logically entail that there is no free will, unless (again) one assumes that evolution determines every aspect of human behavior.

But of course, someone taking Provine's position could then respond to each of my points. And the "debate" would be joined, to proceed for 102 comments, or 1002. At the end of the day, neither side would have proven much of anything, except that they have irreconcilable differences.

What is really at issue here is a clash of worldviews. And worldviews are not changed by debate. They are more fundamental than that. They are, in a sense, pre-logical; they are the foundation on which we build our logical arguments. To some extent, our logic is used merely to justify and reinforce positions that we have already accepted at a gut level. Admittedly, this approach is rationalistic, but there is a fine line between rationality and rationalism, and we all cross it sometimes, without even realizing that we've done so.

This doesn't mean a person's worldview can never change. It can - but not as a result of debate. I think there are basically two ways a worldview can be altered or even replaced entirely. The first way is if a person undergoes some startling, paradigm-shifting event, such as a near-death experience. St. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is a classic example of a dramatic personal experience that abruptly and irreversibly alters a person's entire belief  system.

The second way is if a person is dissatisfied with life, uneasy, unfulfilled, and begins to search for greater meaning and purpose. This process can take years and can lead in unexpected directions. It is less dramatic than the Damascus road conversion, but can be equally life-changing.

Note that in both cases, change comes from within. A worldview is too personal and fundamental to be changed by outside pressure. A person must change in his own way, on his own terms, at his own speed.

Arguing about such fundamental issues really accomplishes nothing. It merely creates unnecessary friction and, usually, causes each side to dig in its heels even more stubbornly. When faced with someone whose worldview is fundamentally different from one's own, the best tactic is probably just to say, "We'll have to agree to disagree." This saves words, saves time, saves energy, and prevents fruitless arguments that only stir up ill will.

Besides, it would be a sad, sterile world if everybody agreed on everything. A society that makes room for a variety of worldviews will be stronger, more multifaceted, more creative, and more resilient than one that does not.

Comments

[Matthew Cromer]

I think you are precisely right.

Internet arguments are a waste of time and result in entrenchment more than enlightenment.

There are very good reasons that people believe in the materialism / skin encapsulated ego formulations of reality. These belief systems allow Spirit to fully participate in the world of Maya and develop individuality to its greatest degree. That's the whole point of this enfleshed level of existence, according to my understanding, so getting angry at those individuals who do the best job of "buying into" the illusions of earth life is pretty silly. Of course there is a place for those with a more spiritual level of awareness, to be sure.

I think the job of those who see "something more" is to provide an alternative vision for those who are floundering in atheistic materialism and ready for something more. For those who are not, we should wish them well, and realize that they will certainly evolve their views in good time, whether this is before or after shedding the flesh raiment.

That is the purpose of my blog AMNAP. I want to provide people the intellectual tools and scientific backing to understand and accept a non-reductionistic model of reality. But only when they are ready. The appeal of engaging in argumentation with "skeptics" is still there for me, but I try to laugh at it as the avatism it is, and engage in more productive persuits.

[Matthew Cromer]

that of course would be atavism not avatism.