Three philosophies merging into one worldview?

[White Raven]

I recently read The Telling by Ursula Le Guin -- a beautiful and thought-provoking book. I just finished it yesterday, and have been mulling it over, and one of the questions it raised in my mind was, is it possible to have a religious worldview (whether that's theism, atheism, pantheism, or what-have-you), personal rules of ethics, and then also a personal philosophy as separate and active entities? That is, a religion, which prescribes one set of behavior; rules of ethics, which likely stem from religion but may also deviate; and a personal philosophy of moving within the world -- perhaps something like the principles of Buddhism or Taoism without the actual religious belief in them, merely an appreciation and identification with their principles that becomes something of a personal philosophy?
If so, what are your three systems? Are they, as I'm assuming would be necessary, generally harmonious? Which is the ultimate authority if they deviate?

[Monte314]

Sure. This kind of credal mixing is called "syncretism". In fact, I think everyone actually does this. I've never met anyone who had what appeared to be a completely consistent worldview. If you look deeply enough, you'll invariable find little bits of "belief" that have been drawn from random experiences and not completely incorporated with the larger worldview.

However, to knowingly harbor gross mental inconsistency is another thing. When we conciously maintain contradictory beliefs to support activities in separate areas of our lives, that's not syncretism; that's hypocrisy.

[White Raven]

No, I know this..but at what point do they merge into 'apostacy'? At what point do you lose one and become the other? How far can you identify?

[Monte314]

No, I know this..but at what point do they merge into 'apostacy'? At what point do you lose one and become the other? How far can you identify?

I guess the "apostacy" question amounts to a matter of priorities. If there are no conflicts or inconsistencies between the positions, then I don't see how "apostacy" could arise. However, when the components of your worldview conflict, eventually one or the other will win out. You have then "fallen away", at least in part, from the losing position.

[mikedilger]

Sure. This kind of credal mixing is called "syncretism". In fact, I think everyone actually does this. I've never met anyone who had what appeared to be a completely consistent worldview. If you look deeply enough, you'll invariable find little bits of "belief" that have been drawn from random experiences and not completely incorporated with the larger worldview.

I think that most people, when they stumble across cognative dissonance (two beliefs that contradict), they try to avoid the emotion by rejecting the newer belief out of hand, or by trying not to think about it.

For me, that's as close a definition to sin as I can imagine.

I enjoy cognative dissonance. It gives me something to chew on -- mind jerky. If I had it all figured out, I'd probably swallow cyanide pills. To solve all cognative dissonance is as good of a reason for existence as I can imagine.

What are my three systems? The specific beliefs are myriad, but I can disclose that I'm athiest, individualist, stoic, and classically liberal; that overlaps with Taoist.





mikedilger added to this post, 5 minutes and 40 seconds later...

What are my three systems? The specific beliefs are myriad, but I can disclose that I'm athiest, individualist, stoic, and classically liberal; that overlaps with Taoist.

Actually maybe I'm not stoic. I'm gonna have to sit down and enumerate the various sub-beliefs and see if my set of beliefs fits in with anything that can be named.