Worldviews?

[PearlSeeker]

Obviously upbringing. If your culture believes in spirits and ghosts and angels and devils and gods, and that was your environment through your first five or more years, then very likely so do you.

But on a more level playing field, it may be that gods, miracles and so on are more attractive to personalities that think synthetically (explain by putting things together / by stories) than to those who think analytically (explain by taking things apart, by reasoning from facts).

I don't mean that the categories are exclusive─ obviously there'll be overlap ─ but where one tendency is more pronounced.

I totally agree about upbringing and maybe also "left"/"right" brain. I thought about how would I be if I was born and raised in a different culture. I would probably belong to a different religion. It's the same as to cheer for the home team.

 

[blü 2]

That's an interesting take on it. Personally, I find the word "supernatural" problematic and part of that is because I come from a religious tradition for whom "supernatural" is a very poor if not outright inaccurate description of the gods (and mine is not the only tradition that is like this). That is to say, the dichotomy is meaningful to some but not to others.

My own view is materialist, so until a meaningful definition of a real god, one with objective existence, is to hand, so we can determine whether any real candidate is god is or not, and until we can use that definition to find an example and get it into the lab, we don't know what a real god is.

Adding in the whole "is it real" brings in a whole new spectrum of philosophical conundrums too, as defining what is and isn't real gets... complicated.

I'd say a thing is real (=has objective existence) if it exists in the world external to the self / nature (&c), independently of the concept of it in any brain. So all the abstractions and generalizations that humans form instinctively, like 'justice', 'two', 'category', 'indifference', 'error', 'a chair' (as distinct from 'this chair') and so on aren't real in this sense. And the relationship between instantiations of such generalizations, and reality, gets interesting too, as you say.

I exist in that cultural space when it comes to religion, so naturally I'm going to balk at some of these dichotomies a bit more than most folks will.

I wish you good hunting!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What factors differentiate theistic and atheistic worldviews?

I really think that it just has to do with the mere addition of teleology to nature/science, and walla, you have religion.

What factors differentiate perspective within these worldviews?

So what tends to happen is that once you add teleology to nature/science, human inventiveness and imagination walks in every direction with this. To my view, I think this is just how we all learn about what the great soul is, and what divine forces are. It can't really be helped, so humans should keep going with it, and eventually a lot the o spiritual data they subjectively gain can be integrated/distilled into the wider animist network. So I am pointing out what I see as 'positive' in all this diffusion of human spirituality, though I do have a few key disagreements with many religions

Atheism however, I see as just a science/nature based system without teleology. To me, this is basically nihilism, however, doubt is also one of our teachers. I see great virtue in the atheist's ability to question everything, even though some of them may despise the way I think. I forgive them for it, since some them are able to be highly analytical when they keep doubt in focus. Perhaps they see too much optimism (that you naturally get if you thought nature had a bit of purpose) as a 'blind-spot,' and so this keeps them picking away at the rock of 'objectivity.'

 

[Milton Platt]

What factors differentiate theistic and atheistic worldviews?

What factors differentiate perspective within these worldviews?

This can include natural philosophy, fundamental, existential, and normative postulates, themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

View attachment 36430

There simply isn't a singular "atheistic" world view, so there is no way to concisely answer your question.

 

[PearlSeeker]

'Supernatural' literally means above (=outside) nature. Nature is the same thing as the world external to the self, the sum of all things with objective existence, the realm of the physical sciences &c, so the supernatural is by definition not real, hence can only be imaginary (ie conceptual with no real counterpart).

Is the self not part of nature? Doesn't it also have objective existence?

Some people don't believe in God/gods but they believe in supernatural phenomena e.g. ghosts, special abilities, miracles. I don't think supernatural is something outside of nature. It's just unusual, it can't be scientifically proven or it seems contrary to scientific understanding and laws of nature.

 

[Darkforbid]

There simply isn't a singular "atheistic" world view, so there is no way to concisely answer your question.

'There are no atheistic worldviews'

Are you saying no atheists have worldviews? Or unaware atheists are people who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Because a theist doing there shopping is still a believer shopping

Look special pleading to me

 

[Valjean]

Well, the magical thinking (whatever that might be) is not atheistic, but atheists reject the evidence of religious experiences (ignorance of the facts), usually on a priori grounds (faulty methodology and logic)

We do not reject religious experience, but we do reject religious experience as empirical, scientific evidence of physical reality -- if it cannot be examined, tested, measured, reproduced or falsified.

You say "ignorance of the facts." I get the impression that you're accepting unsupported doctrine as fact, and using this axiomatically to generate a priori conclusions.This is a faulty methodology, and faulty logic.

Philosophic atheism often prefers observable, testable evidence, and reasons a posteriori from that. This approach has been extraordinarily successful in advancing human knowledge, technology and well-being.

 

[PearlSeeker]

We do not reject religious experience, but we do reject religious experience as empirical, scientific evidence of physical reality -- if it cannot be examined, tested, measured, reproduced or falsified.

Actually, religious experience is empirical evidence of spiritual reality (empirical=experiential). It's a fact to someone who has experienced it.

 

[Valjean]

Actually, religious experience is empirical evidence of spiritual reality (empirical=experiential). It's a fact to someone who has experienced it.

All well and good. But to convince anyone who has not experienced it you need empirical facts; something testable and reproducible.
Personal experience is not empirical. Evidence that isn't testable, reproducible, falsifiable and predictive isn't really evidence, is it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

All well and good. But to convince anyone who has not experienced it you need empirical facts; something testable and reproducible.
Personal experience is not empirical. Evidence that isn't testable, reproducible, falsifiable and predictive isn't really evidence, is it?

If the same personal experience is repeated in millions of people, then faith it is testable, it most likely already has been.

It has been written that there are 4 proof of a prophet, a link to God, they are

1. The fulfillment of former prophecies
   
   
2. The actual words of the prophet
   
   
3. The deeds of the prophet
   
   
4. The teachings of the prophet

The first is only a proof to some and are not valid for many, but the last 3 are testable by a personal empirical experience and this quote tells us how; (Quote applicable to Baha'i Faith, but it crosses all Faiths and all Prophets)

"A supreme proof is the teaching. For instance the precepts of Christ were sufficient proof of his validity. There is no greater proof than these teachings. They were the light of that cycle and the spirit of that age. All that he said accorded with the needs of the humanity of that time. They were peerless and unique.

Consider His Holiness Baha’u’llah and his teaching. They are the spirit of this cycle – the light of this age. They illumine the dark places of humanity, for they address themselves to the heart of the race. For instance, the greatest evil of this century is war. In the new age Baha’u’llah has prohibited war. The need of this century is universal peace – Baha’u’llah has instituted it. The most urgent requisite of mankind is the declaration of the oneness of the world of humanity – this is the great principle of Baha’u’llah. That which will leaven the human world is a love that will insure the abandonment of pride, oppression and hatred. The principles of Baha’u’llah are the remedy and balm for the wounded world; and without their inculcation, reconciliation between the nations will not be reached. These very teachings of Baha’u’llah are the greatest proofs of his claim. Such a power hath appeared from him as will suffice to convince the whole world.

The proof of the sun is its light and heat." – Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, pp. 43-46.

Thus this is what binds the heart of people, people that are in-tune with the requirements of the age have connected to the source that has offered a remedy for all the ills of the current world. It is thus very testable. It is that test of Logic that builds the evidence.

Regards Tony

 

[Valjean]

If the same personal experience is repeated in millions of people, then faith it is testable, it most likely already has been.

Good point. But what personal experience is both universal, independent of culture, religion or historical age?
That would be the Mystical Experience, of course. We should all become Yogis.

It has been written that there are 4 proof of a prophet, a link to God, they are:

1. The fulfillment of former prophecies

1. Can't any religious claimant be seen as conforming to prophecies? Isn't this a common claim, for prophets all over the world? For example, wasn't much of Cortes' success against the Aztec empire a result of his fulfilling an ancient religious prophecy?
   
2. Moreover, intentionally fulfilling a known prophecy to bolster one's claim can be pretty easy.
   
   

3. The actual words of the prophet

   How are words alone proof of anything? A raving maniac has words; a parrot has words, everyone has words.
4. Just making a claim isn't evidence of anything unless it can be corroborated with empirical facts or testing.
   
   

5. The deeds of the prophet

   I'm at a loss here. How do deeds prove a prophet? Are there particular deeds unique to prophets?
   
6. This needs some further explanation.
   
   

7. The teachings of the prophet

   Again, I don't follow. I understand how teachings might be convincing to someone who already agrees with them, but generally isn't the believability of a teaching dependent on the facts and testing it's based on? Isn't a scientific lecture more believable and better evidenced than a sermon, for example?

The first is only a proof to some and are not valid for many, but the last 3 are testable by a personal empirical experience and this quote tells us how; (Quote applicable to Baha'i Faith, but it crosses all Faiths and all Prophets)

How are you defining "proof" and what on earth is a "personal empirical experience?"

"A supreme proof is the teaching. For instance the precepts of Christ were sufficient proof of his validity.

How so? If they were proof they would be unquestioned and universally accepted, like the Pythagorean theorem or Newton's laws of motion.

There is no greater proof than these teachings. They were the light of that cycle and the spirit of that age. All that he said accorded with the needs of the humanity of that time. They were peerless and unique.

You have a unique definition of "proof."
Anyone can preach peace, love and harmony. Many people do, but this is no evidence of their spiritual status.

 

[Milton Platt]

'There are no atheistic worldviews'

Are you saying no atheists have worldviews? Or unaware atheists are people who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Because a theist doing there shopping is still a believer shopping

Look special pleading to me

Sorry, that was unclear, wasn't it.
I meant that there is not a single world view that you must have if you are an atheist. Atheists vary on many things. They necessarily agree on one thing.
I certainly concede that there are some thing which are more likely to be included in an atheist's worldview than an theists. And there are many things that atheists and theists share within their worldviews.

Not sure what shopping has to do with a worldview.

 

[Straw Dog]

What factors differentiate theistic and atheistic worldviews?

What factors differentiate perspective within these worldviews?

This can include natural philosophy, fundamental, existential, and normative postulates, themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

View attachment 36430

I cannot speak for all worldviews on either ‘side’. However, from my own perspective...

Ultimately, reality is beyond human comprehension. We invent and identify with myths as a meaningful coping mechanism to deal with our profound ignorance. We prefer a spoonful of certainty over a cartful of possibilities.

Those who are certain are actually more easily manipulated. It’s like revealing your cards... or rather your strings in this case. It’s locking your mind in a conceptual box in which it will never escape.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Good point. But what personal experience is both universal, independent of culture, religion or historical age?
That would be the Mystical Experience, of course. We should all become Yogis.

This shows the progression of religion, you will see many faiths cross cultures and have become more world embracing, Christianity was foretold to be taught and practiced in all Nations and a day would come when we are world embracing.

That is the Message of Baha'u'llah, which breaks all cultural or religious barriers for us to embrace one humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[Valjean]

Actually, religious experience is empirical evidence of spiritual reality (empirical=experiential). It's a fact to someone who has experienced it.

Experiential is all well and good, but it's convincing only to yourself unless it's a common, reproducible experience.
Empirical, as usually used in science, refers to observable, experimental evidence.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Actually, religious experience is empirical evidence of spiritual reality (empirical=experiential). It's a fact to someone who has experienced it.

All well and good. But to convince anyone who has not experienced it you need empirical facts; something testable and reproducible.
Personal experience is not empirical. Evidence that isn't testable, reproducible, falsifiable and predictive isn't really evidence, is it?

Some definitions of "empirical":

• originating in or based on observation or experience
• based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory
  
• derived from or guided by experience or experiment

Religious experience is an experience. So it's empirical (empeiría is the Greek word for experience). It's personal first hand knowledge. It's probative value for someone who has not experienced it depends on person's own interest and desire to seek and explore.

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

 

[Darkforbid]

Sorry, that was unclear, wasn't it.
I meant that there is not a single world view that you must have if you are an atheist. Atheists vary on many things. They necessarily agree on one thing.
I certainly concede that there are some thing which are more likely to be included in an atheist's worldview than an theists. And there are many things that atheists and theists share within their worldviews.

Not sure what shopping has to do with a worldview.

So you're now talking about atheists worldviews in response to a post critical of your comment 'There are no atheistic worldviews'. Well done!!

 

[columbus]

Actually, religious experience is empirical evidence of spiritual reality (empirical=experiential). It's a fact to someone who has experienced it.

No it isn't.
The difference between faith-based beliefs and beliefs based on empirical evidence is that empirical evidence can be examined by anyone. So it's likely to be true for everyone.
Faith based evidence cannot be distinguished from illusion or delusion. If there's a way for others to investigate the evidence becomes empirical.
Tom