A confluence of views that conflict.

I have been having a nice conversation with a fellow blogger named Truth Or Consequences who has made me realize what might be a common misconception about people who happen to share a worldview that is similar to mine, so I decided to blog on that misconception.

I will start by saying that I have many views that happen to conflict in one or many areas and that makes those who read my positions on my views to think that I look for things to confirm my "preferred existing views" at the expense of one of my other views, when in reality, I look for things to try to “solve” the conflicts that exist in my “multi-faceted” worldviews without trying to prove or disprove any of them. Most people will accept any position that agrees with theirs without much thought, and summarily dismiss an opposing view without much inspection.

I usually find that just because there are some "missing links" in my views that I don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The preponderance of data or information is good enough until something else comes along. But on the other hand, if something comes along that completely shoots down one of my views, then I change. I have even changed religions because of that very thing.

First Example, I believe in God. The reason that I believe in God can be summed up in the statement above about the preponderance of data or information that makes sense to most people in the world. There are too many things that can't be explained by science because they are not in the part of this Universe that we can measure. Science will tell you for example that they may be other dimensions, such as suggested by "string theory", but we just don't know yet.

How is it that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people who have had “out of body” experiences, especially near death ones, and in almost all cases they related almost, if not exactly, identically experiences. Hovering above their body…. moving toward a light…etc, etc. Read the book "Life After Life" by Dr. Raymond Moody, for the inspriation of your life about this concept, (if you have an open mind or are inquisitive.)

The concept can be further investigated in the question..."What is a mind?" Is the mind the essence of life? Is it the intelligence within us, or the spirit or soul of man/woman?

Where there is smoke there is usually fire. There is just too much information on the metaphysical side to ignore, so why not investigate with an open mind.

I also believe in Evolution but also believe that Man was created in the image of God. This view has a built in conflict, so I look for opinions or facts where possible that might give me a better handle on what might make “more” sense than what the current view I hold presents. Such as what the book “The Science of God” by Gerald R. Schroeder did for me in this wonderful book that I could not put down until I finished it. One of the top Ten books I have ever read!

Another example is I believe in Physics and for a long time I had a problem with the conflict of the notion that the Universe being created in six days, yet my logic and science told me it was Billions of years old. So, again, I looked for views that could help me solve that conflict, but not to prove anything one way or another. Again enter Dr. Schroder and his book above.

But to an outsider, it would appear that I was looking to “prove science wrong” in order to prove the other view right. Nothing could be further from the truth. My core view is that both Science and my other conflicting views must be in concert as the truth and facts must agree.

I also believe in Global Climate Changes, but I also hold the view that there are those in the world with agendas that wants to make us believe that man is bad and especially modern man and his excessive use of resources.

And so they look for ways to force their assumptions to arrive at the conclusion they desire. It is well known that the scientific mind wants to be able to “explain the world around us” and that we all have bias.

If a scientist holds a worldview that man must be causing the Global Climate Changes, then he will begin his Hypothesis with that assumption. Everyone knows that Conclusions are arrived at by way of the opening assumptions. Make the wrong assumptions and you arrive at the wrong conclusions.

So, to those who truly have an open mind, they will seek out dissenting views that may or may not fit the current “majority view” since the press and those in academia generally hold anti-conservative views and thus will try to “force” their agenda and views to fit their desired outcomes.

For those who believed that the world was flat, it was rational not to sail to far or they would fall off the edge of the world. But today, if you go against the mainstream views, you are acting irrational. Once the minority view is found to be true, then the whole paradigm changes, but today if the “majority of scientists” say something, then it “must be correct.” After all how can the majority ever be wrong?