Worldview wars

Worldview wars refers to the contextual background of the meaning and impact of a worldview, and the positioning of the 'materialistic world conception' of contemporary Mineral science versus that based on and derived from Spiritual science.

The term war is there because conflicts have far reaching societal impacts that reach through to the development of Man and his free choice.

Aspects

see also: abolishing the soul and spirit - see more on 869#Aspects

General introduction for perspective

Introduction

What people believe gives them certainty and a worldview hence is like an 'operating system' for a person and society.

It is therefore also the basis for stability of power structures.

Therefore, what people believe has always been the basis for conflicts and wars, and we can learn a lot from it.

We can distinguish two main areas:

scientific beliefs of how the nature of the world and cosmos
happenings in the world, the reality of events, political facts and motivations

Historical perspective

In the previous fourth greco-roman cultural age (747 BC to 1413), the the greek culture was followed by the huge power of the Roman empire. After the fall of the Roman empire, the position of power was taken up by the Roman Catholic church that became the largest power structure in Europe and the world (certainly between the 4th and 14th century).

First centuries

Examples of extreme actions by the Roman Catholic Church were:

the college for destruction of initiation, gnosis, spirit'
- whereby 'Everything that this college did not allow was thoroughly swept away and what remained was modified before being passed on to posterity' .. “For as long as possible nothing new shall be seen in the spiritual world” - so decreed this college. “The principle of initiation shall be completely rooted out and destroyed. Only the writings we are now modifying are to survive for posterity.”
- See the quote 1922-07-23-GA214 on Christ Impulse - meeting of two streams
the abolition of the spirit, made official by decree by the fourth council of the Catholic Church in Constantinople in the year 869

Middle ages

The crusades are examples of religious wars, but with war we mean not an armed conflict but a long-standing collision of belief systems.

Not agreeing to the commonly accepted truths, called heresy, led to torture, imprisonement, being exiled, or burned.

The most famous case of a conflict with the church was that of Galileo (1564-1642) in the period 1610-1633. At first he escaped the Inquisition but later he was still sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and put under house arrest until his death.

Others were less fortunate, examples of people who got killed or burned this way are:

Hypathia (360-415), Pietro d'Abano (1257-1316), Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639)

The church had an index of forbidden literature and banned books, called the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, or 'Index' in short. Viewing this list with a 21st century perspective, the following authors found their books on the index:

Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, Baruch Spinoza, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, Henri Bergson,
and for sure people with a spiritual perspective like Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Emanuel Swedenborg.

Some books were on the index of banned books for centuries but later removed, eg the works of Dante Alighieri, Nicolas Copernicus De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543) from 1616 to 1835, the three books by Johannes Kepler (1609 to 1835), and Victor Hugo upto 1959.

Note Rudolf Steiner mentions the examples of Copernicus and Kepler, because of the 200 years that the books with worldview impact were not allowed to be read widely in society without a 'ban' by the authority of the roman catholic church.

Current 20-21st century

1/ scientific worldview or belief system

A large category of topics are being scoped out, certainly that is to be expected in the area to do with human consciousness:

coincidence, synchronicity, serendipity, epiphany, premonition, etc
remote viewing, lucid dreaming, out-of body experiences (OBE), near death experiences (NDE), astral travel, etc

but also findings that contradict the paradigm cause anger in the scientific community:

for example the work by scientists who made discoveries that didn't fit the scientific paradigm, eg Samuel Hahnemann, Albert von Herzeele, Jacques Benveniste, Rupert Sheldrake
the work by Nicolas Tesla or John E.W. Keely

2/ happenings in the world, the reality of events

media control -> public opinion

-> information war, ao spreading dis-information,

information which is not true but purposely broadcast to distract or confuse people, whereby they are not aware or are not able to find the truth any more. This in term can be used to the advantage by the parties who organize such information campaigns.

see the Rudolf Steiner's Karma of Untruthfullness lectures (GA ..)

Implications

It is the mainstream view of science and history that is taught at schools, the rest is ridiculed. Researching wikipedia gives plenty of examples of what is called 'pseudo-science', whereby it is shown with all possible means that the findings are impossible or erroneous.

The importance is that society organizes to try and weed out all that does not fit, as illustrated with a few examples:

in some countries, homeopathy is not reimboursed by the governmental health care system because it is a sham (and working against the stakes of established pharmaceuticals industry and lobby)
many countries still have legal government restrictions on religion or social and societal rules involving religion
even a recent modern western-european example - the last twenty years more than fifteen countries rolled out laws regarding opinions about an event of the 20th century

Still today people are being imprisoned because they hold a different belief.

This illustrates that the above principles are of all ages and are everywhere, today just as in the past - albeit just in different forms.

Lecture coverage and references

1912-11-27-GA069A

We have all possible worldviews or viewpoints in the usual world. There one has materialism, positivism, individualism, spiritualism and so on. Try only once to listen objectively to another person who feels pressured into alleging all logical and other reasons for materialism or spiritualism and so on by his whole education, by his whole life. Then you will convince yourself that it is never quite entitled, actually, to feel as an opponent of materialism or spiritualism and so on. You will realise that for all these viewpoints numerous reasonable arguments can be brought forward. You may mostly completely agree—if you are unbiased—with a representative of the concerning viewpoint.
Even if you do not stand at all on the materialist viewpoint, you may say if you listen to a reasonable materialist: yes, nevertheless, it is well founded what he brings forward for his viewpoint.
The uncomfortable begins where people are committed to any viewpoint unilaterally and attack and reject another viewpoint to the point of intolerability sometimes. It would be very well conceivable that somebody says who has experiences in this area: yes, I can be a materialist rather well, where materialism is entitled, and a spiritualist where spiritualism is entitled and so on. This possibility absolutely exists.
...
If anybody is not committed only to materialism, but has saved so much freedom for himself to refrain from his approach and to exert some self-knowledge, then he can ask himself, how has my present life proceeded, actually? How have my habitual ways of thinking developed, what has induced me, for example, to follow more the material coherences? Thus, a follower of materialism may ask. The follower of a more spiritual view can also do that. There you already find in the usual life that one creates a subjective viewpoint.
Thereby one gets to know the logical value of a viewpoint that one knows how one has got it how a certain life direction has induced one to think just in such a way.
Not because one looks for truth in the middle between the different viewpoints, but because one recognises how this viewpoint has originated and why one judges in such a way, one becomes fair towards the other, and one gets around to acknowledging the value of the other viewpoint.
The different viewpoints compensate each other if the followers of these different viewpoints practise self-knowledge.
Imagine once that some people of contrary viewpoints meet like in a board and quarrel about their different viewpoints. Somebody who has taken part in such a thing knows that, besides, normally nothing results. If people rise after hours-long discussion, everybody is normally still convinced fanatically of his viewpoint as before. If the attempt were done that such a board were quiet one hour and everybody checked during one hour only how he has got to his viewpoint, and if they started talking only then again, they would not start quarrelling. This possibility is imaginable. Since one would find understanding for the other viewpoint by self-knowledge, by investigation of the way which one has done to get to his viewpoint. Already in the usual life, it is obvious that self-knowledge is the way to approach truth gradually, and that then the truth positions itself in the middle that one, however, must not put his opinion between the contrary viewpoints.
This self-knowledge must take place to a much greater extent with that who wants to avoid the sources of error in the supersensible area. Here I have to say that the spiritual researcher can approach truth only if he begins to practise self-knowledge in the area of the supersensible in the extreme. He has enough opportunity if he does not surrender to that which appears as pictures in his soul at first, but if he can say to himself, you yourself are the pictures in your soul; even if they are maybe wonderful—this is no supersensible world; you yourself are all that, projected onto space.
...
Because self-knowledge is difficult, the risk of a substantial error arises that the spiritual researcher does not reach the point where he can place himself, so to speak, beside himself. However, you cannot say, here is truth, here is error, but only that you can wend your way to truth. The more you are able to consider yourself as an objective being, the more you approach truth. While the consciousness of a medium has to be diminished, it has to be strengthened with the spiritual researcher just in such a way that he is not mistaken about himself and about what he has in himself. While entering the spiritual world you have to target the fact as sharply as possible that you face your concentrated own self. Thus, you eliminate everything personal from the supersensible percipience.
...
Now here we can get to a kind of definition of error in the supersensible world. This error consists of the fact that one has insufficiently cast off the own subjectivity, and, therefore, always the own individuality intermingles in the pictures of objective reality. It is quite natural on one side if one often says that everybody portrays that somewhat different which the seer perceives, and, hence, one can count on nothing at all. One can concede such a fact, but stressing this is trivial, it is just a self-evident fact. It is natural that the ideal of the spiritual researcher can hardly completely attained and that, hence, everywhere in that which the spiritual researcher describes a subjective, individual element intermingles. He, who can compare, however, will find that if one does not only look at the pictures, but at the experiences they are more or less similar.
...
Thus, the determinative of truth or error in spiritual research is not anything that you acquire to yourself as a seer only, but something that you have already acquired before in intellectual and moral respects. In particular, moral things are strongly involved in how one interprets the supersensible phenomena. Someone who is prejudiced in a certain belief who has sympathies and prejudices for the fact that something certain should be true, brings this disposition, this prejudice into the supersensible world; he interprets the phenomena after it. Everything that he fathomed and announced of the spiritual world can be an error because it is coloured with his subjective belief.
Here is the area where I have to point—after we have discussed the sources of error of spiritual research—to the sources of error by the dissemination of spiritual science.
Spiritual research touches the most intimate of our hearts, the big questions of life. As the researcher carries his prejudices, his belief, his sympathies and antipathies into the spiritual world and thereby distorts the things and beholds wrong, the audience, the confessors—let me use the term—meet the spiritual researcher with certain beliefs, certain sympathies, or antipathies.
Something develops that does not lead to an objective judgement, but that is associated with all possible things which take effect from human being to human being. As strongly as the soul longs for experiencing something about these things, as the human soul is careless now and again to apply the unbiased reason to judge what the spiritual researcher brings forward, although it could be judged completely. Then belief often replaces an unbiased judgement because one likes that which the one or the other says maybe only because he brings it forward emphatically or because one finds him pleasant. The belief replaces the objective, conscientious verification; one accepts the things trusting in authority. The worst is if authority mania interposes itself between the spiritual researcher and his audience. Therefore, as with all things about which we have heard today that the spiritual researcher should follow them he keeps guard as it were beside his own self. The confessor, who listens to the spiritual researcher, should pay attention to his common sense and repeatedly carry out a kind of self-inspection to realise how much belief, prejudice, and sympathy intermingles in the facts that he accepts with the messages of the spiritual researcher.
Since in double respect accepting at mere belief causes big damage is a source of error just with the dissemination of spiritual science. The one is that the confessor does not develop healthy judgement what is the most necessary. Because common sense can be practised best of all if the results of spiritual research are thought through; you deprive yourself of the best opportunity if you accept these results at mere belief.
The second one is: because the things are important which the spiritual researcher has to say, he may exercise an incorrect influence over his supporters—if the listener does not constantly keep his common sense in readiness—because one believes him because one takes up that prejudiced what one should check, actually. Thereby the spiritual researcher tries—instead of exercising an entitled influence, while he is convincing and the listeners realise what he says—, to persuade while he overpowers their common sense. Even if this ideal condition cannot yet be reached today, one has to say that if truth should prevail the confessors should make it to the spiritual researcher as difficult as possible to spread his truths and should impose the highest requirements on him if he expresses his knowledge in concepts and ideas of common sense.
Then one counteracts what, unfortunately, is a fact and a forever returning source of error with the dissemination of spiritual truths that charlatanism and all possible similar mingles so easily with spiritual research. Unless just common sense is applied permanently, one does no longer know where conscientious spiritual research and where charlatanism and humbug is, and everything is thrown together.
...
Thus, it will be necessary above all, so that truth and not error can prevail with the dissemination of spiritual research, that in particular with the confessors of spiritual research critical reason, critical judgement, and common sense and not belief in authority develop.
This belief in authority will already wither away if a knowledge spreads among those who like and need spiritual research, a knowledge that is not common, unfortunately, among the confessors of spiritual science that a seer is no higher animal because he can behold in the supersensible world.
He does not differ from other human beings, just as little as a chemist, a botanist, a machinist, or a tailor. The possession of spiritual knowledge does not really determine the value of the human being but only that he can investigate this area and bring the acquired knowledge to his fellow men.
Only his common sense determines the value of the human being, his power of judgement and his moral qualities. Just spiritual research could prove that intellectual and moral qualities of the human being already determine his value, before he enters into the spiritual world, and that if he is inferior there the results of his research will be inferior. It is exceptionally necessary to realise this. Even more than the opponents of spiritual science, its supporters should take stock of themselves in this field.
Thus, I tried today to describe not only the possibilities of error finding spiritual truth, but also the possibility of error with the dissemination of spiritual truths. I tried to evoke a sensation that conscientious spiritual research acknowledges that its opponents can often argue this or that rightly and that conscientious spiritual research can and has to argue in the same way because it is just important in this area to face the error to recognise the truth.
For the confessors of spiritual science has that who wants to be conscientious, as a rule, only one consolation: truth has a strong power, and, even if error slips in because of the belief in authority, by the self-correction of truth those are cured who were supporters of this or that for a while at mere belief in authority. In most cases, such a cure takes place because one has to pay the price as it were to have had such a blind belief in authority. Often it just happened that because one did not observe the details sharply, but took one's word for it that then with a radical case it appears how little conscientiously one has gone forward. If then pain and disappointment are the more significant, the cure is just successful.

1915-05-15-GA159

talks about the challenge of a spiritual culture in central Europe between the eastern luciferic and western ahrimanic influences

(SWCC)

The souls are prepared for materialism best of all if they are in a half-sleeping state for the external life, so to speak, if they are still childish souls. One does not notice that one can bring into the souls ideas which prepare them best of all to accept the materialistic view as a matter of course.
...
Our souls have to tend to that which was prepared in the Central European culture especially expressing that we are put pendulum-like between two powers permeating the world and that we must find the balance. We have to realise that, on the one side, the world strives for ahrimanic hardening, strives to get solidified in the fire of the purely material; that it strives, on the other side, to ascend egotistically to an abstract spirituality. Following the one or other side would ruin the Central European human being. Following only the science engaged in the external senses would persuade us to tear the roses from the cross and only to look at that which solidifies. We would gain a world view gradually which would completely deflect the human being from looking at the spiritual. It would allow to only looking at that which has solidified ahrimanically. Try to imagine the ideals of the ahrimanic science: it is a world of whirling atoms, a purely material world creation. One wishes to throw everything spiritual out of this world-picture.
...

This is a threat to tear the roses from the cross and to have only the black, charred cross. ... ... science, which wants to tear the roses from the cross and to keep only the charred cross, tends to the West.

The other threat is to tear the cross from the roses and want to strive only for the spirit, despise what the divinity has put in the world development, not to want to dive affectionately into the thought that the phenomena of the sensory world express the godhead. This is the unilaterally religious world view which despises the science which only wants the roses and which tends unconsciously to the luciferic element of the East.

We, however, in Central Europe, we have a vocation to have the roses on the cross to have this what is expressed only by the connection of the roses with the cross, the roses on the cross.