Comparing worldview

Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Comparing worldview

This might be a bit long, and might not be the best spot to post it. Ho-hum.

I've been thinking about one of the problems which often comes up when discussing anything with theists (or practically anyone else), which is when discussion ends up at the worldview comparing stage. At that point people tend to completely fail to grasp the other persons point of view, people get upset because others can't see their point, and so on.

All these morality threads recently got me thinking about this. There's been a lot of theists (Paisley, I'm thinking of you in particular here) going on and on about 'Any worldview without god is bleak and meaningless' but don't seem to have understood what view the other side holds. I suspect we atheists do the same to the theists on occasion. One part of this problem is that as atheists/non-religious people generally we all have slightly different views, and we don't tend to take the time to describe them fully. I don't have a detailed knowledge of the views of most atheists I encounter never mind most theists.

So, my solution is to try and put down a summary of my worldview (not really trying to justify it here or say how I came to it, just describing it). If anyone else, theist, atheist or miscellaneous other, feels like doing the same I'd be very interested to read it.

I wrote:

My worldview is based on a duality. The reason for this is that I am a mathematician and an empiricist, which gives me a very accurate but very specific way of interpreting some things about the world. I'm also human, and I enjoy things like art and music and anthropology, and deep down I'm a bit of a romantic.

Empiricism is very important to my view of the world. The theists amongst us will probably label it my 'faith'. I think that everything which can be said to exist in any meaningful sense can be observed using instruments or our own senses, can be described simply and logically, and can be modelled and predicted mathematically. I don't consider this faith, because I have cause for thinking like this: throughout all of recorded history it has worked reliably and consistently.

Implicit in empiricism is that nothing exists which cannot be given at least some minimal logical treatment. I long ago satisfied myself that the omnipotence paradoxes exclude the existence of omnipotent beings, and by extension exclude the god of most monotheistic religions. Interestingly enough deism and polytheism are not affected, but I discount those on the grounds of plausibility and the prohibition against needlessly multiplying entities. Ultimately if there's not clear and consistent evidence for something, then I don't think it's there.

So, on the the big duality. If I apply empirical methods starting from mathematics and the basic rules of physics, I find no place for free will. If I apply empirical methods starting from anthropology and the basic rules of psychology, then there is free will. Nice contradiction, or so it seems. Fortunately there is a gap, where the study of complex systems has not yet been able to tell us whether free will is an illusion or an epiphenomenon of neurology. I have the sensation of free will and people around me have the appearance of it, so I assume it's there and emerges through some means not yet entirely understood.

I've actually come to enjoy the sensation of cognitive dissonance I get from it, although it is a bit unnerving at times. Like cerebral base jumping. I find no need to create a god of the gaps to resolve the issue, instead it gives me a need to learn and understand and to find better forms of expression.

Which is a major part of the purpose of my life: to learn, understand, and communicate my understanding with others. Genetics states that, at least in part, my purpose is to pass on my genes to future generations which, being a gay man and an only child, is not that likely to occur. Memetics states that, at least in part, my purpose is to pass on my memes to future generations. Memes, for those who don't know, are hypothetical units of ideation, which do for cognition what genes do for physiology. I am driven by my very selfish memes which want to survive by being passed on to others.

I'm also driven simply by my own selfishness. I want to have all sorts of cool stuff, like telescopes and computers and games and a nice house in the country. I want money, and to go to concerts and galleries, and see natural wonders, and feel good about myself, and have really great sex. Those last two are the most important, because humans have empathy, and because whilst natural selection has little to do with my chances of breeding sexual selection and the Handicap principle play a big part in my chances of picking up hot guys.

I have morals, things that I don't want to happen to me and I don't want to set the precedent that they're acceptable by doing them or allowing them to be done to other people. I have ideals, big mathematical and philosophical structures in my head that I think the world should reflect. Trying to spread those, and bring them about, is one human equivalent of the peacock fanning it's feathers. Showing off my knowledge and ability to use it is another kind of display, although in the case of a lot of the stuff I know it's niche advertising. There are many more behaviours that can be looked at in this way.

So long as it doesn't do disproportionate harm to me altruism is in my interest; note the use of disproportionate there, even in my selfish mind preventing a sufficiently great harm to others can outweigh my own survival. Martyrdom is one very effective way of spreading the memes after all, and risk-takers are sexy.

It's not a bleak or purposeless view. Granted, the purpose comes from something which is might be an epiphenomenon or might be an illusion. More immediate purposes come from circumstances and choices. It's not as shallow as it seems either. I get meaning from beauty, in people and art and nature and abstract structures, and from the satisfaction of fulfilling my purposes. I've deliberately left out my thoughts on love, because that would take several more paragraphs to explain, but that's important and another source of meaning.

The meaning in my life, and purpose of it overlap but are very different things. And at the end, I have no reason to think that there is anything left but memes in other people's heads and a blob of carbon compounds. It's another motivation, I have to achieve as much of my purposes and experience as much meaning in a finite time as I can, while there is still a me to do it.

I think that sums it up. Far from complete, or detailed there. Longer than I intended when I started writing, but as short as I can reasonably make it. I think I've just about managed to be coherant too.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:One part

Indeterminate wrote:

One part of this problem is that as atheists/non-religious people generally we all have slightly different views

 

No. Diversity can never be a problem.

The first problem is that we think our "worldviews" matter. They don't.

The second one is that we think we can explain our own and/or understand other people's "worldviews". We can't.

What we can do, however, is to agree on some rules for civilized behaviour to one another - including, but not limited to, how we present our opinions and conduct our discussion on the relative differences of opinion that we seem to experience. Like for instance how metaphysical speculation isn't about being right or wrong, much less about winning the discussion. It is about things we need to have in our life in order for the world to make sense; and for us to be happy with it all.

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Indeterminate

Marquis wrote:

Indeterminate wrote:

One part of this problem is that as atheists/non-religious people generally we all have slightly different views

No. Diversity can never be a problem.

The first problem is that we think our "worldviews" matter. They don't.

The second one is that we think we can explain our own and/or understand other people's "worldviews". We can't.

The problem is that people have a habit of assuming that they know what worldview someone else holds and that other people know what theirs is, rather than taking the time to exchange that information. The problem is made greater by the diversity of possible views, but the diversity is not the problem. Diversity is a good thing.

My worldview matters to me, and I find it interesting and useful to find out other peoples. In that sense, such things matter.

I think we can express our worldview, although if someone else's is too different to my own I might have trouble understanding it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:The

Indeterminate wrote:

The problem is that people have a habit of assuming that they know what worldview someone else holds and that other people know what theirs is, rather than taking the time to exchange that information. The problem is made greater by the diversity of possible views, but the diversity is not the problem. Diversity is a good thing.

My worldview matters to me, and I find it interesting and useful to find out other peoples. In that sense, such things matter.

I think we can express our worldview, although if someone else's is too different to my own I might have trouble understanding it. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

I tend to agree, this thread has the potential to be very enlightening... and entertaining.

I shall endeavour to participate when i can spare a sizable block of time, to type something out

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:My

Indeterminate wrote:

My worldview matters to me, and I find it interesting and useful to find out other peoples.

 

Of course your worldview matters to you! Just as mine matters to me; or anybody else's matters to them. It's a personal and emotional issue. One where you through an internal dialogue explain to yourself what is going on in your relationship with life, other people, and the world. But it is ulimately a question of personal tastes and preferences, something even the ancient Romans knew were impossible subjects to debate: De Gustibus Non Disputandum.

 

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Of course your

Marquis wrote:

Of course your worldview matters to you! Just as mine matters to me; or anybody else's matters to them. It's a personal and emotional issue. One where you through an internal dialogue explain to yourself what is going on in your relationship with life, other people, and the world. But it is ulimately a question of personal tastes and preferences, something even the ancient Romans knew were impossible subjects to debate: De Gustibus Non Disputandum.

What I think was more important was explaining why other peoples worldviews matter to me. That I don't necessarily agree with what other people think and don't expect to be able to change their minds doesn't mean that what they think and why they think it holds no interest for me. I'd like to think that other people have some interest in what I think and why I think it, even if they don't agree with me.

The premise of this whole thread isn't debate anyway, more exposition and curiosity, but if you really think worldview is a subject which cannot and should not be debated then why are you here? Isn't the whole point of this forum to debate between competing worldviews?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Isn't

Indeterminate wrote:

Isn't the whole point of this forum to debate between competing worldviews?

 

It could also be an attempt at establishing some rational parameters for how such a debate may be executed.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Indeterminate

Marquis wrote:

Indeterminate wrote:

Isn't the whole point of this forum to debate between competing worldviews?

It could also be an attempt at establishing some rational parameters for how such a debate may be executed.

But you've already asserted that no such debate can be executed, so any attempt to establish parameters for it is pointless.

Anyway, you can't establish parameters for a debate without knowledge of the issue at hand and the starting positions of the participants, so this exercise still has merit.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate

Indeterminate wrote:
knowledge of the issue at hand

 

Quite so.

The first question, in my opinion, must be: What are we debating? And what is the point of the debate?

(At this point, you and I are already at a meta-meta level of a metaphysical debate, which I find funny.)

We could perhaps start by saying that there is no right or wrong when it comes to "worldviews". Hence no competition either. So what is the competition about then? THAT is, in my opinion, something which needs to be addressed if, say, the point of the debate is a comparative study of ideas and their origins.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Indeterminate

Marquis wrote:

Indeterminate wrote:
knowledge of the issue at hand

 

Quite so.

The first question, in my opinion, must be: What are we debating? And what is the point of the debate?

(At this point, you and I are already at a meta-meta level of a metaphysical debate, which I find funny.)

We could perhaps start by saying that there is no right or wrong when it comes to "worldviews". Hence no competition either. So what is the competition about then? THAT is, in my opinion, something which needs to be addressed if, say, the point of the debate is a comparative study of ideas and their origins.

We could try for meta-meta-meta if you like?

The point of this thread was not to debate, but it's turned into me and you debating rhetoric. Debate around here generally seems to cover any number of questions from epistemology, metaphysics and metaethics. I think it's valid to examine whole worldviews and then choose the most interesting points of contention from amongst them if there is to be a debate.

I don't agree that there is no right or wrong when it comes to worldviews. There may not be a definitively correct or definitively incorrect one, but different views have different merits and some are better than others. Ones worldview incorporates all the presuppositions one uses to reason about the world. As in science and logic: a smaller, simpler set of presuppositions which makes a larger range of true conclusions more readily deducible is preferable.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:I don't

Indeterminate wrote:

I don't agree that there is no right or wrong when it comes to worldviews.

 

Yes well... you share that attitude with a lot of people.

However, I personally hold the worldview that what matters is what people actually do, not what motivates them.

So, we can speak of for instance morality only in terms of behaviour, not in terms of ideas and opinions; according to my worldview.

But then again, it is perhaps not comme il faut to be a pragmaticist in a world of ideologies.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:This

Indeterminate wrote:

This might be a bit long, and might not be the best spot to post it. Ho-hum.

I've been thinking about one of the problems which often comes up when discussing anything with theists (or practically anyone else), which is when discussion ends up at the worldview comparing stage. At that point people tend to completely fail to grasp the other persons point of view, people get upset because others can't see their point, and so on.

All these morality threads recently got me thinking about this. There's been a lot of theists (Paisley, I'm thinking of you in particular here) going on and on about 'Any worldview without god is bleak and meaningless' but don't seem to have understood what view the other side holds. I suspect we atheists do the same to the theists on occasion.

It is true that I have repeatedly stated that the worldview of atheistic materialism implies that  life is ultimately (a very key qualifier here) meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. I have yet to see a logical counterargument proferred that would lead to believe otherwise. If that were to happen, then I would acknowledge it accordingly.

Based on your profile, I can see you are newcomer to this forum. I myself, on the other hand, have significantly more experience here than you. And make no mistake about it. This is a militant atheistic forum whose sole purpose is to ridicule, mock and stamp-out any/or all religious or spiritual beliefs. The reality is that the majority of the members on this forum are not particularly interested in comparing opposing worldviews. And I think you may be a little naive to think otherwise.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:interested in

Paisley wrote:
interested in comparing opposing worldviews

 

This is funny. You are doing it too. Perhaps the two of you evolved from a common ancestor?

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:It is true

Paisley wrote:

It is true that I have repeatedly stated that the worldview of atheistic materialism implies that  life is ultimately (a very key qualifier here) meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. I have yet to see a logical counterargument proferred that would lead to believe otherwise. If that were to happen, then I would acknowledge it accordingly.

Based on your profile, I can see you are newcomer to this forum. I myself, on the other hand, have significantly more experience here than you. And make no mistake about it. This is a militant atheistic forum whose sole purpose is to ridicule, mock and stamp-out any/or all religious or spiritual beliefs. The reality is that the majority of the members on this forum are not particularly interested in comparing opposing worldviews. And I think you may be a little naive to think otherwise.

Having read hundreds of your posts, I doubt very much that you could describe atheistic materialism or venture a reasonable guess as to why atheists would apply the same description to most theistic worldviews. I certainly couldn't describe your views, since I've not been able to find any occasion where you've expounded them in any detail, although I've found many occasions on which you've been invited to.

Of course, it's easier to make patronising comments than constructive ones, isn't it? I may be a relative newcomer to this forum but this is not my first rhetorical outing. Personally I find both sides on here a little aggressive for my taste, but rather than whinge I thought I'd try to take a less confrontational direction and encourage the kind of information exchange that I feel is missing.

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Paisley

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:
interested in comparing opposing worldviews

This is funny. You are doing it too. Perhaps the two of you evolved from a common ancestor?

I am doing what?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate

Indeterminate wrote:
encourage the kind of information exchange that I feel is missing.

 

However you read me, I atually think this is a worthwhile goal to pursue.

Even so, I am still of the mind that we should start with defining some parameters for the debate in order to remain reasonably assured that it doesn't just deteriorate into a question of who's right and wrong, who holds the worthiest opinions, etc. As a starting point, I will - again - propose that we all accept that when it comes to personal and emotionally founded "worldviews", the concepts of right and wrong have no logical value and their "meaning" can only be that of defence and/or shit disturbing.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Even so, I am

Marquis wrote:

Even so, I am still of the mind that we should start with defining some parameters for the debate in order to remain reasonably assured that it doesn't just deteriorate into a question of who's right and wrong, who holds the worthiest opinions, etc. As a starting point, I will - again - propose that we all accept that when it comes to personal and emotionally founded "worldviews", the concepts of right and wrong have no logical value and their "meaning" can only be that of defence and/or shit disturbing.

I see what you're getting at - it could easily descend into name calling - which is why I've kept saying that the point of this thread is not a debate. It's not going to be avoided though, so some kind of parameters may be needed, but I don't think we can all accept that the concepts of right and wrong hold no meaning in this discussion. I for one disagree, if I were to claim otherwise I'd just be paying lip service to the idea. 

One friend of mine is an anglican priest, and we sometimes have this sort of discussion. We usually proceed from the assumption that neither of us is going to change the others mind, so we shouldn't bother trying. Asking questions is fine, as is pointing out problems, but we're explaining rather than debating. How does that approach strike you?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Paisley

Indeterminate wrote:

Paisley wrote:

It is true that I have repeatedly stated that the worldview of atheistic materialism implies that  life is ultimately (a very key qualifier here) meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. I have yet to see a logical counterargument proferred that would lead to believe otherwise. If that were to happen, then I would acknowledge it accordingly.

Based on your profile, I can see you are newcomer to this forum. I myself, on the other hand, have significantly more experience here than you. And make no mistake about it. This is a militant atheistic forum whose sole purpose is to ridicule, mock and stamp-out any/or all religious or spiritual beliefs. The reality is that the majority of the members on this forum are not particularly interested in comparing opposing worldviews. And I think you may be a little naive to think otherwise.

Having read hundreds of your posts, I doubt very much that you could describe atheistic materialism or venture a reasonable guess as to why atheists would apply the same description to most theistic worldviews.

The following criteria apply to atheistic materialism (a.k.a. scientific materialism):

- deterministic

- reductionistic

- sensationistic

- relativistic

- nihilistic

- positivistic (as in logical positivism)

- materialistic

- monistic

- atheistic 

Indeterminate wrote:

I certainly couldn't describe your views, since I've not been able to find any occasion where you've expounded them in any detail, although I've found many occasions on which you've been invited to.

No, you can't. And I am not about to share my theistic views with you.

Indeterminate wrote:

Of course, it's easier to make patronising comments than constructive ones, isn't it? I may be a relative newcomer to this forum but this is not my first rhetorical outing. Personally I find both sides on here a little aggressive for my taste, but rather than whinge I thought I'd try to take a less confrontational direction and encourage the kind of information exchange that I feel is missing.

I would say that singling me out in the OP of this thread qualifies as confrontational.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Indeterminate

Paisley wrote:

Indeterminate wrote:

Paisley wrote:

It is true that I have repeatedly stated that the worldview of atheistic materialism implies that  life is ultimately (a very key qualifier here) meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. I have yet to see a logical counterargument proferred that would lead to believe otherwise. If that were to happen, then I would acknowledge it accordingly.

Based on your profile, I can see you are newcomer to this forum. I myself, on the other hand, have significantly more experience here than you. And make no mistake about it. This is a militant atheistic forum whose sole purpose is to ridicule, mock and stamp-out any/or all religious or spiritual beliefs. The reality is that the majority of the members on this forum are not particularly interested in comparing opposing worldviews. And I think you may be a little naive to think otherwise.

Having read hundreds of your posts, I doubt very much that you could describe atheistic materialism or venture a reasonable guess as to why atheists would apply the same description to most theistic worldviews.

The following criteria apply to atheistic materialism (a.k.a. scientific materialism):

- deterministic

- reductionistic

- sensationistic

- relativistic

- nihilistic

- positivistic (as in logical positivism)

- materialistic

- monistic

- atheistic 

Indeterminate wrote:

I certainly couldn't describe your views, since I've not been able to find any occasion where you've expounded them in any detail, although I've found many occasions on which you've been invited to.

No, you can't. And I am not about to share my theistic views with you.

Indeterminate wrote:

Of course, it's easier to make patronising comments than constructive ones, isn't it? I may be a relative newcomer to this forum but this is not my first rhetorical outing. Personally I find both sides on here a little aggressive for my taste, but rather than whinge I thought I'd try to take a less confrontational direction and encourage the kind of information exchange that I feel is missing.

I would say that singling me out in the OP of this thread qualifies as confrontational.

Good thing most folks her aren't atheistic materialists, huh?

Oh, wait...you think we are all atheistic materialists because we're atheists.

As for your views, you have a broader definition of God - you don't want to say there is no God and you don't want to limit him to a particular version. So you say everything is God and is in God. It's also known as hedging your bets.

As for confronatationalism - Paisley, you're the one eho played the "I'll show the new guy/girl/? what this place is really like" card.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The following

Paisley wrote:

The following criteria apply to atheistic materialism (a.k.a. scientific materialism):

- deterministic

- reductionistic

- sensationistic

- relativistic

- nihilistic

- positivistic (as in logical positivism)

- materialistic

- monistic

- atheistic 

While you have the dictionary handy, look up the word 'describe'.

I also note that you didn't attempt to venture a reasonable guess as to why atheists would apply the same description to most theistic worldviews.

Paisley wrote:

No, you can't. And I am not about to share my theistic views with you.

Presumably you don't expect to convince anyone of their merits if you won't state them. Oh well, I can't make you.

Paisley wrote:

I would say that singling me out in the OP of this thread qualifies as confrontational.

You're the most recent example of someone acting in the way I described in the OP, which you're doing in the Faith thread, hence why I mentioned you by name. If it makes you feel better I can find other examples.

 

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"