Please define personal philosophy and world view in your own words.
Why my own words? It's a common definition: A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( listen), composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook'). It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it. [1]
This is not a subjective thing, it's a definition. My words are those words. I read and assign that meaning to the words "World View."
Because if you truly understand a concept you should be able to explain it in your own words. I want to know how you understand those two phrases. I am talking to you not the internet.
"I've never heard of the term 'theist,' but don't care about what it is or what it means."
Is this not the world view of "If i do not know of it I don't care about it."
This being said, I have no idea what you were responding to, and I may be mistaken. I do think that people shouldn't close their mind off to things outright though. It's a bad habit.
I mean, I was responding to mystery's anecdotal evidence as to why he at least party believes in God. To my knowledge there are likely very plausible explanations as to why someone may survive a car accident or an illness. I always find it interesting when someones attributes fortune to the divine when dumb luck is likely just that; dumb luck. I've encountered many situations where the odds were weighed heavily against me and still came out on top. I never once thought, "God did it".
As to closing myself off to metaphysical notions, aside from the need to sometimes debate such topics I truly don't see how it should ever be applied to the physical world, affect your daily decisions and etc. I just feel like it makes more sense to operate under the assumption that there isn't some big brother in the sky watching my every move.
Because if you truly understand a concept you should be able to explain it in your own words. I want to know how you understand those two phrases. I am talking to you not the internet.
I'm just telling you what the words means. I'm not really going to try and debate you about it. If you read wiki and it was unclear I guess I could try and explain it, but I doubt I could do a better job of it than wiki. If you feel that that part from you I quoted isn't described by that part in wiki, then THAT we can talk about.
Is there some reason you don't feel what you said falls into the category explained by wiki?
Is this not the world view of "If i do not know of it I don't care about it."
If you then gave a reason "because I make it a point to not learn about words," then it becomes a world view in the most basic sense. You're explaining you have an outlook about new words, a personal code you follow in your life. So, yes, they are likely making that stament because of their world view, but it could also be because they don't have time to hear you explain or something.
I can't think of any kind of rational person who would be without a world view, but not all statements someone says convey their worldview.
I'm just telling you what the words means. I'm not really going to try and debate you about it.
i did not ask you to debate the definition and i never called the definition into question. I just wanted your interpretation of those words.
If you read wiki and it was unclear I guess I could try and explain it, but I doubt I could do a better job of it than wiki.
I believe that you can and i truly mean that earnestly and not sarcastically.
If you feel that that part from you I quoted isn't described by that part in wiki, then THAT we can talk about.
Is there some reason you don't feel what you said falls into the category explained by wiki?
My problem with the concept of world view and personal philosophy, is not that i feel like i do not have them; it is that i feel like the those phrases are to vague to have a good meaningful concept to talk about. That is why i wanted the definitions to be whittled down by your interpretation and examples.
Not without a reason. If you then gave a reason "because I make it a point to not learn about words" then it becomes a world view in the most basic sense. You're explaining you have an outlook about new words, a personal code you follow in your life.
I can't think of any kind of rational person who would be without a world view, but not all statements someone says convey their worldview.
So a stated reason is a necessary component for a world view?
My reason for saying that there is not an in-between land called supernatural is because of the Law of the excluded middle and my understanding of what the word natural means. Is that really a world view?
This is why supernatural claims still exist today.
There is no such thing as supernatural. It is a made up word that describes an in between existence which cannot exist.
Natural = existence.
Either god does exist and god is a naturally occurring being or god does not exist. There is no magical in-between land.
That same sentence could be retyped and you could replace god with all other supernatural claims. One more example.
Either ghosts exist and it is a naturally occurring fact that some or all people retain a form after death or ghosts do not exist. There is no magical in-between land
The moment an "proper" explanation occurs, it is no longer supernatural.
I trust you know what I mean by that statement.
hint- It is the exact same thing you wrote above.
DTG99-
That assumption is fine. The issue I referred to is when people close off the possibility of something that they find to be very implausible, to the point of being impossible.
Occurrences of this occur far too often in, say, academia. Medicine deals with this on a daily basis, and so does archaeology. This is why it's imperative that you are at least willing to keep an open mind on things and try to take in information on a neutral basis.
Truly a tall order. I can't do it, but I like to remind myself to do it on a daily basis.
As for miracles- I've seen a "miracle" before. My mom was had ovarian cancer, which was successfully treated. A year later, her oncologist found a suspicious mass growing around her intestines. Biopsy and blood tests confirmed it to be cancer, and the doctors were really worried that it was a relapse of the ovarian cancer. If it was, then it's pretty much a death sentence, given the nature of previously localized cancers that spread to another part of the body.
They immediately went into surgery a week later, and lo and behold! It's gone. Completely and utterly gone. The surgeon was so dumbfounded that he spent the next 4-5 or so hours checking every part of her intestine. Nothing. Blood tests done immediately afterwards found nothing as well.
It's been 6 months and 2-3 blood tests later, and nothing has popped up. Her oncologist has no idea what happened and told my mom that they're going to be studying her case for a while.
Could the doctors have completely failed? Maybe? But this happens to be one of the best hospitals in the U.S., and the oncologist himself has been practicing for quite some time. Obviously none of this really ensures that there will be no failures, but when the oncologist says that they'll be studying the case, then I would imagine it is out of the norm.
My parents and their church people think it's a miracle, and attribute the disappearance of the mass to prayer.
I believe that you can and i truly mean that earnestly and not sarcastically.
Well, I can't say 'no' to that then, not in good conscience.
A "world view" is a constant outlook someone has on life/reality/perspective. It is often in the form of a personal code or a rationalization of actions in a way that they believe is internally constant. It is central to how they view the world and is formed over the course of the person's life.
(This next part is more MY opinion of a world view)
A person is defined by their world view. In my experience, it's often in "tiers" were a fundamental assumption supports higher levels of the world view. If you want to change a tier of someone's world view, you need to look at the tiers that support it. In my experience, things like physical evidence in reality (something they 'see with their own eyes') and an aversion to appearing inconsistent are normally very close to the most fundamental tier of a person's world view.
I really believe that if you understand the basic assumptions a person has, you can normally get most of what they think or feel because their world view is normally pretty logical and constant from the different starting points.
Understanding other people's world view is of utmost importance to me.
My problem with the concept of world view and personal philosophy, is not that i feel like i do not have them; it is that i feel like the those phrases are to vague to have a good meaningful concept to talk about. That is why i wanted the definitions to be whittled down by your interpretation and examples.
So a stated reason is a necessary component for a world view?
My reason for saying that there is not an in-between land called supernatural is because of the Law of the excluded middle and my understanding of what the word natural meas. Is that really a world view?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so let me just make some general statements that could apply to lots of people:
Lots of atheists recoil at the idea of having atheism labeled a "philosophy."
It normally comes from the general sense that the rejection of something they feel is fundamentally ridiculous isn't a philosophy. "Would not believing in an invisible sky monster be a 'philosophy?'"<- that kinda thing. And, I think I would agree with them on that point.
However, anyone who is going around arguing about it, probably does have some kind of philosophy on it, IMO. This is because at that point most have gone beyond a simple rejection, they have started to rationalize that rejection.
Then it becomes a world view (or part of their existing world view).
I am saying that the entire term "supernatural" exists solely as a placeholder on things that we do not understand.
Either it is used to explain an phenomena that doesn't actually occur (ghosts imo), or a phenomena that does occur but we have no reasonable explanation for (lightning for ancient Greeks).
since no one else has bothered, I'll have to be the one to ask.
Algebra, upon what evidence is your 'knowledge' of the 'fact' that no God exists based?
Which god? If it is the tri-omni god my evidence is that fact that i could have a made a better existence.
Quote from algebra »
I know for a fact that god does not exist and my evidence for this claim is all of known existence.
It's your claim. You tell me what you think you can disprove. And I'd like to know what evidence you have that you could have made a better existence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
If algebra wants YOU to reject the idea of "God," he is probably going to have the burden of proof. If you want HIM to accept the idea of "God," you are probably going to have the burden of proof.
On the surface of the argument, algebra has no more reason to accept your God than you do to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I don't know a single atheist that claims "As a fact, there is no God". No one says this, and you know that there are no atheists on these boards that are willing to make that statements (except Algebra :P). It is as unsupported by evidence as the claim that there IS a god.
Which puts us right back to what i said in the beginning.
Thing is the experiences that i have seen in myself and in others are grounded in reality as they actually occured.
My biggest problem with the Athiest=belief system is this.
Atheism is a reaction to or a rejection of an a priori claim <Gods>, and not an a priori claim in itself <No Gods>.
Now you may argue (like with Algebra) that some atheists do make an a priori claim <No Gods>
However, I believe that what we have then is a chicken-egg dilemma.
What came first, the claim of <Gods> or the claim of <No Gods>?
I argue that clearly, <God> came first.
Ancient man wasn't walking around shouting <no gods> <no gods> <no gods> until someone came along and convinced them otherwise.
They were at first the cold hard definition of ignorant uneducated agnostics until someone came along and said <Gods>. Probably to explain to those literal numb-skulls why something bad/good happened.
<Gods> preceded <No Gods> which was only a rejection of <Gods> by people who, just like today, didn't buy the horse.
This is why I cannot agree that Atheism is a belief system, or even a belief at all for that matter. A-Theism (without-gods) is not something that arose naturally - it literally was created BY a belief in Gods. As the belief in various Gods rose from the minds of early man - the disbelief in such nonsense is it's natural byproduct.
In this sense, atheism is the skeptical rejection of someone's tall-tale told as truth, until that tall-tale presents verifiable and testable data.
Because of this Mystery - my disbelief in your claims that the experiences you attribute to your belief in God(s) actually happened in reality is not a belief system.
If you can present any evidence whatsoever that these events actually occurred in a divine nature, I would actually believe them. My guess though is that you have no such evidence, or you would provide it and not have to struggle so hard to defend your position.
I am an Anti-theist Agnostic.
I don't know if there's gods or not, but organized religions suck.
Wouldn't people start out as atheists, and then become theists after being told that there are God(s) and believing it? I don't think anyone is born into this world with a concept of there being a God(s). I remember asking about this on another forum and this person said that atheism is the default and theism is a positive change.
No. Because A-Theism is the disbelief in the concept of Theism.
People are only born Agnostics, literally, agnostics about everything. Pretty much any concept past eating, breathing, ****ting, and crawling, people are born with no knowledge. All concepts are taught/learned.
If there is no concept of god(s) whatsoever, then people cannot be holding to the disbelief in them.
If you read my post, you would see that I called them ignorant uneducated agnostics.
i.e.
If there exists no concept of HUURAHMETS, people can't be a-huurahmets.
They would be agnostics with no concept of Huurahmets.
For this reason, Theism came first.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No. Because A-Theism is the disbelief in the concept of Theism.
People are only born Agnostics, literally, agnostics about everything. Pretty much any concept past eating, breathing, ****ting, and crawling, people are born with no knowledge. All concepts are taught/learned.
If there is no concept of god(s) whatsoever, then people cannot be holding to the disbelief in them.
If you read my post, you would see that I called them ignorant uneducated agnostics.
i.e.
If there exists no concept of HUURAHMETS, people can't be a-huurahmets.
They would be agnostics with no concept of Huurahmets.
For this reason, Theism came first.
It's important to note that humans are generally predisposed to religion:
However, that neither proves nor disproves the validity of any given religion, it only shows why this debate is even a debate. It's very difficult to adequately discuss such a complicated issue, because religion is so ingrained in all cultures in the world and it's such a diverse mix of sociology, economics, psychology and evolutionary biology that I don't many people are really capable of covering in detail.
My parents and their church people think it's a miracle, and attribute the disappearance of the mass to prayer.
I don't know what to think.
Firstly, I'm very happy to hear that your mom is doing fine. It's also very interesting that the oncologist was left dumbfounded. I still reserve the right to believe that there is possibly a very plausible explanation. As you said, it's possible that there could have been a mistake in the diagnoses.
Also, does your mom pray a lot? I'm also interested in the placebo effect associated with praying as our minds are extremely powerful. The placebo effect in general defies logic. I remember reading about a study where patients with similar knee ailments were brought in and told they would be undergoing surgery to repair said ailments. For the control group, they would still get cut open but they would not receive any actual treatment. After the study was concluded, there was no difference between the control group and the people who actually received treatment. It's amazing. Would some people call that a miracle? Probably.
No. Because A-Theism is the disbelief in the concept of Theism.
People are only born Agnostics, literally, agnostics about everything. Pretty much any concept past eating, breathing, ****ting, and crawling, people are born with no knowledge. All concepts are taught/learned.
If there is no concept of god(s) whatsoever, then people cannot be holding to the disbelief in them.
If you read my post, you would see that I called them ignorant uneducated agnostics.
i.e.
If there exists no concept of HUURAHMETS, people can't be a-huurahmets.
They would be agnostics with no concept of Huurahmets.
For this reason, Theism came first.
It's important to note that humans are generally predisposed to religion:
However, that neither proves nor disproves the validity of any given religion, it only shows why this debate is even a debate. It's very difficult to adequately discuss such a complicated issue, because religion is so ingrained in all cultures in the world and it's such a diverse mix of sociology, economics, psychology and evolutionary biology that I don't many people are really capable of covering in detail.
If you read the actual studies and their results, you'll find that it does not prove we are naturally inclined towards Religion, all it proves is that humans are naturally predisposed towards religious-like beliefs. Humans naturally are 1) Curious, 2) Fearful of the unknown, 3) Easily persuaded by self-stratifying explanations, and 4) Capable of complex abstract thought.
I highly doubt any Atheist would argue that this is not true.
Put it all together and it's easy to understand why God(s) sprung up everywhere.
Even the article itself brings up a valuable point - religious-like beliefs and god(s) in the societies of early mankind helped by creating "invisible governments" long before real civilizations began.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Firstly, I'm very happy to hear that your mom is doing fine. It's also very interesting that the oncologist was left dumbfounded. I still reserve the right to believe that there is possibly a very plausible explanation. As you said, it's possible that there could have been a mistake in the diagnoses.
Yes, but my question is how do you expect it to not strain beyond reasonable expectations when every incredible event must be attributed to something that we know about, however unlikely it may be?
The body scan(forget what it's exactly called), the biopsy, and the blood-test, all confirmed it to be cancer or some sort of mass. Yet it's not there. If I was to consider the fact that the hospital failed on 3 particular tests, handled by different departments, then it's incredibly difficult for me to even place trust in those three departments. The entire point of hospital procedures is that they're not supposed to fail; seeing as how a failure of a test can literally determine life or death.
Why is it easier to "believe" (I understand it's not necessary belief here, but it's the first word to come to mind), that the hospital failed on three separate occasions more so than that a miracle occurred? Is it because miracles don't exist? Is it because not all prayers work?
Maybe God decides on a case to case basis on whose prayer is granted or not. If that is the case, then it would be very difficult, if not outright impossible, to make any sort of determination on the effects of prayer, wouldn't it?
In short, anyone who tries to make any sort of judgment (that a miracle occurred! Or that a miracle did not) are being close-minded. The proper answer, imo, would be no answer at all. How can you make an answer when you don't have any evidence to support anything?
Also, does your mom pray a lot? I'm also interested in the placebo effect associated with praying as our minds are extremely powerful. The placebo effect in general defies logic. I remember reading about a study where patients with similar knee ailments were brought in and told they would be undergoing surgery to repair said ailments. For the control group, they would still get cut open but they would not receive any actual treatment. After the study was concluded, there was no difference between the control group and the people who actually received treatment. It's amazing. Would some people call that a miracle? Probably.
I have no doubt that the placebo effect plays a considerable part in the supposed healing powers of prayer. The placebo effect is real, and prayer plays a large part into what the placebo effect requires.
Why is it easier to "believe" (I understand it's not necessary belief here, but it's the first word to come to mind), that the hospital failed on three separate occasions more so than that a miracle occurred?
How out of line would I be in reducing this question to a comparison of "Some very low percentage chance of three failures" and "Magic"?
You wouldn't be, because that's basically what I'm asking. Though I suppose you replacing miracles with magic seems a little odd. I'm not sure what that would achieve, given that in this specific case I am literally referring to a miracle that supposedly came through prayer.
Why is it easier/preferable to believe in something that should, by all reasonable expectation given the assumed quality of the hospital my mom was treated at, have virtually no chance of occurring; and occurring at three separate departments/labs at that?
Not really, seeing as I haven't made any claims whatsoever. All I asked is that Algebra explain his 'knowledge' of the 'fact' that God doesn't exist. He wanted to know which God to disprove, and I told him he could disprove any God he wanted, since it was his claim.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
You wouldn't be, because that's basically what I'm asking. Though I suppose you replacing miracles with magic seems a little odd. I'm not sure what that would achieve, given that in this specific case I am literally referring to a miracle that supposedly came through prayer.
Why is it easier/preferable to believe in something that should, by all reasonable expectation given the assumed quality of the hospital my mom was treated at, have virtually no chance of occurring; and occurring at three separate departments/labs at that?
The purpose in replacing "miracles" with "magic" was to point out how an appeal to such a force is necessarily inferior to any actual explanation. I'm hardly saying that three such tests all failing was even close to likely (and I don't really know all of the circumstances or have sort of knowledge in the field), but even so it holds more water than an appeal to miracles. Now then, neither am I saying that this is what happened: The chances of this occurring are so astronomically small that the question should be raised "What actually happened?", rather than leaving it at miracles or chance. It has been this way all through history. For instance, take a lightning rod. An early person who saw it struck many times in a row may say "The gods must hate that pole, for surely there is no way lightning would strike the same place so many times", when we actually know that it is struck so much for a reason. So when we find these situations, we go and search for the answer to expand or knowledge of the world. We look for the most plausible explanation, and "Magic" is always at the bottom of the list. You say it was prayer that cured your mother, while I say that since correlation =/= causation, and since by nature magic/miracles cannot be explained as a cause, it cannot be accepted as such. I think this is part of what algebra was getting at with "There is nothing supernatural".
Not really, seeing as I haven't made any claims whatsoever. All I asked is that Algebra explain his 'knowledge' of the 'fact' that God doesn't exist. He wanted to know which God to disprove, and I told him he could disprove any God he wanted, since it was his claim.
Well, fair enough. I'll let algebra field that question then. I know a few answers to the "how to make a better world" question, but I'd like to hear his. (It has personal meaning for me, since someone's answer to it was an important turning point in my own faith. I look forward to hearing his answer.)
Anyway--while we're here--what IS your opinion on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you say you know for a 'fact' it's not real? Why or why not? What would you cite as evidence for or against the FSM?
The purpose in replacing "miracles" with "magic" was to point out how an appeal to such a force is necessarily inferior to any actual explanation. I'm hardly saying that three such tests all failing was even close to likely (and I don't really know all of the circumstances or have sort of knowledge in the field), but even so it holds more water than an appeal to miracles.
And I am asking why do you believe this?
If you answer with "it just is" or any variant of that, you do realize that you're no better than Christians who say "miracles happen!" with no proof whatsoever?
Now then, neither am I saying that this is what happened: The chances of this occurring are so astronomically small that the question should be raised "What actually happened?", rather than leaving it at miracles or chance. It has been this way all through history. For instance, take a lightning rod. An early person who saw it struck many times in a row may say "The gods must hate that pole, for surely there is no way lightning would strike the same place so many times", when we actually know that it is struck so much for a reason. So when we find these situations, we go and search for the answer to expand or knowledge of the world. We look for the most plausible explanation, and "Magic" is always at the bottom of the list.
You say it was prayer that cured your mother, while I say that since correlation =/= causation, and since by nature magic/miracles cannot be explained as a cause, it cannot be accepted as such. I think this is part of what algebra was getting at with "There is nothing supernatural".
I didn't say it was prayer that cured my mom. I said that the doctors have absolutely no idea what happened, but my parents and their church think it's a miracle. I don't know what happened, and I leave it at that.
And you are also wrong with "since by nature magic/miracles cannot be explained as a cause". Nature in of itself has no meaning, first of all.
You are referring to the scientific method, I would imagine, and the fact that miracles and magic cannot be verified by them. What of it?
You do realize that the ancient Greeks were using the scientific method when they concluded that the Sun circles the Earth? The fact that we cannot find evidence for the existence of miracles don't mean anything at all. Conversely, that we do have evidence for something does not conclusively mean that something is true.
In any case, what I am trying to talk about here is the matter of perspectives. It's a hypothetical, really.
Here, I'll put it really ****ing bluntly- When there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to make any sort of conclusion, why do you prefer to fall back onto something that you are more comfortable with?
If you answer with "it just is" or any variant of that, you do realize that you're no better than Christians who say "miracles happen!" with no proof whatsoever?
Consider something like the lottery, especially one where there is no guarantee of anyone winning. The odds are ridiculously against you, and yet is it a miracle when someone wins? Obviously not. If you like, I'll take this argument a step further into (my limited knowledge of) quantum mechanics. Within quantum mechanics, pretty much anything is possible, even if extremely unlikely. A lottery on a grand scale, if you will. The problem with magic as an explanation is that it has no explaining power unless you have already accepted it's existence, which obviously I have not. And even then, since a non-magic explanation can always exists, even if you can't think of it, how is one to know the difference between a miracle and a freak coincidence from one's perspective?
I didn't say it was prayer that cured my mom. I said that the doctors have absolutely no idea what happened, but my parents and their church think it's a miracle. I don't know what happened, and I leave it at that.
You are referring to the scientific method, I would imagine, and the fact that miracles and magic cannot be verified by them. What of it?
You do realize that the ancient Greeks were using the scientific method when they concluded that the Sun circles the Earth? The fact that we cannot find evidence for the existence of miracles don't mean anything at all. Conversely, that we do have evidence for something does not conclusively mean that something is true.
What? Why should we believe in things we have no evidence for just because we make mistakes? I fail to see how one justifies the other.
In any case, what I am trying to talk about here is the matter of perspectives. It's a hypothetical, really.
Here, I'll put it really ****ing bluntly- When there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to make any sort of conclusion, why do you prefer to fall back onto something that you are more comfortable with?
When there is no evidence to suggest why something happened, my reaction is "I don't know". This strikes me as far more reasonable than posing an explanation which, as I said above, has no power. The next step if I'm interested enough is to go and find evidence. I wouldn't really call that what I'm "comfortable" with, so much as what makes sense. I would pose the same question back to those who do subscribe to miracles, why is that your fallback?
When there is no evidence to suggest why something happened, my reaction is "I don't know".
If that's your answer, then that's all I want. That's great. It just irks me a bit whenever people face absolute uncertainly and still veer towards a certain answer, simply because the other possibility doesn't make sense to them.
This entire thing was meant largely for DTG99 anyhow.
Humans want something bigger than themselves to believe in, to sort of make them feel worthwhile or fulfilled. This could manifest in just about anything.
Me personally is the idea of Possibility. Imagining all the various things that could happen and waiting eagerly to see what comes next.
Do I know what's going to happen, no, and that's the beauty of it. I get to find out.
But I think with religion is that you try to explain the unknown with something you believe you know. Perhaps its the fear of uncertainty.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why my own words? It's a common definition:
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( listen), composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook'). It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it. [1]
This is not a subjective thing, it's a definition. My words are those words. I read and assign that meaning to the words "World View."
"I've never heard of the term 'theist,' but don't care about what it is or what it means."
Because if you truly understand a concept you should be able to explain it in your own words. I want to know how you understand those two phrases. I am talking to you not the internet.
Is this not the world view of "If i do not know of it I don't care about it."
I mean, I was responding to mystery's anecdotal evidence as to why he at least party believes in God. To my knowledge there are likely very plausible explanations as to why someone may survive a car accident or an illness. I always find it interesting when someones attributes fortune to the divine when dumb luck is likely just that; dumb luck. I've encountered many situations where the odds were weighed heavily against me and still came out on top. I never once thought, "God did it".
As to closing myself off to metaphysical notions, aside from the need to sometimes debate such topics I truly don't see how it should ever be applied to the physical world, affect your daily decisions and etc. I just feel like it makes more sense to operate under the assumption that there isn't some big brother in the sky watching my every move.
I'm just telling you what the words means. I'm not really going to try and debate you about it. If you read wiki and it was unclear I guess I could try and explain it, but I doubt I could do a better job of it than wiki. If you feel that that part from you I quoted isn't described by that part in wiki, then THAT we can talk about.
Is there some reason you don't feel what you said falls into the category explained by wiki?
If you then gave a reason "because I make it a point to not learn about words," then it becomes a world view in the most basic sense. You're explaining you have an outlook about new words, a personal code you follow in your life. So, yes, they are likely making that stament because of their world view, but it could also be because they don't have time to hear you explain or something.
I can't think of any kind of rational person who would be without a world view, but not all statements someone says convey their worldview.
i did not ask you to debate the definition and i never called the definition into question. I just wanted your interpretation of those words.
I believe that you can and i truly mean that earnestly and not sarcastically.
My problem with the concept of world view and personal philosophy, is not that i feel like i do not have them; it is that i feel like the those phrases are to vague to have a good meaningful concept to talk about. That is why i wanted the definitions to be whittled down by your interpretation and examples.
So a stated reason is a necessary component for a world view?
My reason for saying that there is not an in-between land called supernatural is because of the Law of the excluded middle and my understanding of what the word natural means. Is that really a world view?
That's... exactly what I wrote.
Here, I'll quote it for you-
I trust you know what I mean by that statement.
hint- It is the exact same thing you wrote above.
DTG99-
That assumption is fine. The issue I referred to is when people close off the possibility of something that they find to be very implausible, to the point of being impossible.
Occurrences of this occur far too often in, say, academia. Medicine deals with this on a daily basis, and so does archaeology. This is why it's imperative that you are at least willing to keep an open mind on things and try to take in information on a neutral basis.
Truly a tall order. I can't do it, but I like to remind myself to do it on a daily basis.
As for miracles- I've seen a "miracle" before. My mom was had ovarian cancer, which was successfully treated. A year later, her oncologist found a suspicious mass growing around her intestines. Biopsy and blood tests confirmed it to be cancer, and the doctors were really worried that it was a relapse of the ovarian cancer. If it was, then it's pretty much a death sentence, given the nature of previously localized cancers that spread to another part of the body.
They immediately went into surgery a week later, and lo and behold! It's gone. Completely and utterly gone. The surgeon was so dumbfounded that he spent the next 4-5 or so hours checking every part of her intestine. Nothing. Blood tests done immediately afterwards found nothing as well.
It's been 6 months and 2-3 blood tests later, and nothing has popped up. Her oncologist has no idea what happened and told my mom that they're going to be studying her case for a while.
Could the doctors have completely failed? Maybe? But this happens to be one of the best hospitals in the U.S., and the oncologist himself has been practicing for quite some time. Obviously none of this really ensures that there will be no failures, but when the oncologist says that they'll be studying the case, then I would imagine it is out of the norm.
My parents and their church people think it's a miracle, and attribute the disappearance of the mass to prayer.
I don't know what to think.
I am not outright disagreeing with you, but i think i am going further than you are.
You claim a proper explanation takes an idea from the supernatural to the natural.
I am saying it is an impossibility that anything supernatural occurs no matter what we know.
Unless i am confused and you also know that supernatural anything is an impossibility.
A "world view" is a constant outlook someone has on life/reality/perspective. It is often in the form of a personal code or a rationalization of actions in a way that they believe is internally constant. It is central to how they view the world and is formed over the course of the person's life.
(This next part is more MY opinion of a world view)
A person is defined by their world view. In my experience, it's often in "tiers" were a fundamental assumption supports higher levels of the world view. If you want to change a tier of someone's world view, you need to look at the tiers that support it. In my experience, things like physical evidence in reality (something they 'see with their own eyes') and an aversion to appearing inconsistent are normally very close to the most fundamental tier of a person's world view.
I really believe that if you understand the basic assumptions a person has, you can normally get most of what they think or feel because their world view is normally pretty logical and constant from the different starting points.
Understanding other people's world view is of utmost importance to me.
Alright, seems reasonable.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so let me just make some general statements that could apply to lots of people:
Lots of atheists recoil at the idea of having atheism labeled a "philosophy."
It normally comes from the general sense that the rejection of something they feel is fundamentally ridiculous isn't a philosophy. "Would not believing in an invisible sky monster be a 'philosophy?'"<- that kinda thing. And, I think I would agree with them on that point.
However, anyone who is going around arguing about it, probably does have some kind of philosophy on it, IMO. This is because at that point most have gone beyond a simple rejection, they have started to rationalize that rejection.
Then it becomes a world view (or part of their existing world view).
Either it is used to explain an phenomena that doesn't actually occur (ghosts imo), or a phenomena that does occur but we have no reasonable explanation for (lightning for ancient Greeks).
It's your claim. You tell me what you think you can disprove. And I'd like to know what evidence you have that you could have made a better existence.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
If algebra wants YOU to reject the idea of "God," he is probably going to have the burden of proof. If you want HIM to accept the idea of "God," you are probably going to have the burden of proof.
On the surface of the argument, algebra has no more reason to accept your God than you do to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
No. Because A-Theism is the disbelief in the concept of Theism.
People are only born Agnostics, literally, agnostics about everything. Pretty much any concept past eating, breathing, ****ting, and crawling, people are born with no knowledge. All concepts are taught/learned.
If there is no concept of god(s) whatsoever, then people cannot be holding to the disbelief in them.
If you read my post, you would see that I called them ignorant uneducated agnostics.
i.e.
If there exists no concept of HUURAHMETS, people can't be a-huurahmets.
They would be agnostics with no concept of Huurahmets.
For this reason, Theism came first.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It's important to note that humans are generally predisposed to religion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0
However, that neither proves nor disproves the validity of any given religion, it only shows why this debate is even a debate. It's very difficult to adequately discuss such a complicated issue, because religion is so ingrained in all cultures in the world and it's such a diverse mix of sociology, economics, psychology and evolutionary biology that I don't many people are really capable of covering in detail.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Firstly, I'm very happy to hear that your mom is doing fine. It's also very interesting that the oncologist was left dumbfounded. I still reserve the right to believe that there is possibly a very plausible explanation. As you said, it's possible that there could have been a mistake in the diagnoses.
Also, does your mom pray a lot? I'm also interested in the placebo effect associated with praying as our minds are extremely powerful. The placebo effect in general defies logic. I remember reading about a study where patients with similar knee ailments were brought in and told they would be undergoing surgery to repair said ailments. For the control group, they would still get cut open but they would not receive any actual treatment. After the study was concluded, there was no difference between the control group and the people who actually received treatment. It's amazing. Would some people call that a miracle? Probably.
If you read the actual studies and their results, you'll find that it does not prove we are naturally inclined towards Religion, all it proves is that humans are naturally predisposed towards religious-like beliefs. Humans naturally are 1) Curious, 2) Fearful of the unknown, 3) Easily persuaded by self-stratifying explanations, and 4) Capable of complex abstract thought.
I highly doubt any Atheist would argue that this is not true.
Put it all together and it's easy to understand why God(s) sprung up everywhere.
Even the article itself brings up a valuable point - religious-like beliefs and god(s) in the societies of early mankind helped by creating "invisible governments" long before real civilizations began.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Yes, but my question is how do you expect it to not strain beyond reasonable expectations when every incredible event must be attributed to something that we know about, however unlikely it may be?
The body scan(forget what it's exactly called), the biopsy, and the blood-test, all confirmed it to be cancer or some sort of mass. Yet it's not there. If I was to consider the fact that the hospital failed on 3 particular tests, handled by different departments, then it's incredibly difficult for me to even place trust in those three departments. The entire point of hospital procedures is that they're not supposed to fail; seeing as how a failure of a test can literally determine life or death.
Why is it easier to "believe" (I understand it's not necessary belief here, but it's the first word to come to mind), that the hospital failed on three separate occasions more so than that a miracle occurred? Is it because miracles don't exist? Is it because not all prayers work?
Maybe God decides on a case to case basis on whose prayer is granted or not. If that is the case, then it would be very difficult, if not outright impossible, to make any sort of determination on the effects of prayer, wouldn't it?
In short, anyone who tries to make any sort of judgment (that a miracle occurred! Or that a miracle did not) are being close-minded. The proper answer, imo, would be no answer at all. How can you make an answer when you don't have any evidence to support anything?
I have no doubt that the placebo effect plays a considerable part in the supposed healing powers of prayer. The placebo effect is real, and prayer plays a large part into what the placebo effect requires.
How out of line would I be in reducing this question to a comparison of "Some very low percentage chance of three failures" and "Magic"?
Why is it easier/preferable to believe in something that should, by all reasonable expectation given the assumed quality of the hospital my mom was treated at, have virtually no chance of occurring; and occurring at three separate departments/labs at that?
Not really, seeing as I haven't made any claims whatsoever. All I asked is that Algebra explain his 'knowledge' of the 'fact' that God doesn't exist. He wanted to know which God to disprove, and I told him he could disprove any God he wanted, since it was his claim.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
The purpose in replacing "miracles" with "magic" was to point out how an appeal to such a force is necessarily inferior to any actual explanation. I'm hardly saying that three such tests all failing was even close to likely (and I don't really know all of the circumstances or have sort of knowledge in the field), but even so it holds more water than an appeal to miracles. Now then, neither am I saying that this is what happened: The chances of this occurring are so astronomically small that the question should be raised "What actually happened?", rather than leaving it at miracles or chance. It has been this way all through history. For instance, take a lightning rod. An early person who saw it struck many times in a row may say "The gods must hate that pole, for surely there is no way lightning would strike the same place so many times", when we actually know that it is struck so much for a reason. So when we find these situations, we go and search for the answer to expand or knowledge of the world. We look for the most plausible explanation, and "Magic" is always at the bottom of the list. You say it was prayer that cured your mother, while I say that since correlation =/= causation, and since by nature magic/miracles cannot be explained as a cause, it cannot be accepted as such. I think this is part of what algebra was getting at with "There is nothing supernatural".
Anyway--while we're here--what IS your opinion on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Would you say you know for a 'fact' it's not real? Why or why not? What would you cite as evidence for or against the FSM?
And I am asking why do you believe this?
If you answer with "it just is" or any variant of that, you do realize that you're no better than Christians who say "miracles happen!" with no proof whatsoever?
I didn't say it was prayer that cured my mom. I said that the doctors have absolutely no idea what happened, but my parents and their church think it's a miracle. I don't know what happened, and I leave it at that.
And you are also wrong with "since by nature magic/miracles cannot be explained as a cause". Nature in of itself has no meaning, first of all.
You are referring to the scientific method, I would imagine, and the fact that miracles and magic cannot be verified by them. What of it?
You do realize that the ancient Greeks were using the scientific method when they concluded that the Sun circles the Earth? The fact that we cannot find evidence for the existence of miracles don't mean anything at all. Conversely, that we do have evidence for something does not conclusively mean that something is true.
In any case, what I am trying to talk about here is the matter of perspectives. It's a hypothetical, really.
Here, I'll put it really ****ing bluntly- When there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to make any sort of conclusion, why do you prefer to fall back onto something that you are more comfortable with?
Consider something like the lottery, especially one where there is no guarantee of anyone winning. The odds are ridiculously against you, and yet is it a miracle when someone wins? Obviously not. If you like, I'll take this argument a step further into (my limited knowledge of) quantum mechanics. Within quantum mechanics, pretty much anything is possible, even if extremely unlikely. A lottery on a grand scale, if you will. The problem with magic as an explanation is that it has no explaining power unless you have already accepted it's existence, which obviously I have not. And even then, since a non-magic explanation can always exists, even if you can't think of it, how is one to know the difference between a miracle and a freak coincidence from one's perspective?
My apologies for misunderstanding that, then.
"Nature" as in the nature of magic. "Magic is science we don't yet understand", so if we can explain it, it's not magic.
What? Why should we believe in things we have no evidence for just because we make mistakes? I fail to see how one justifies the other.
When there is no evidence to suggest why something happened, my reaction is "I don't know". This strikes me as far more reasonable than posing an explanation which, as I said above, has no power. The next step if I'm interested enough is to go and find evidence. I wouldn't really call that what I'm "comfortable" with, so much as what makes sense. I would pose the same question back to those who do subscribe to miracles, why is that your fallback?
If that's your answer, then that's all I want. That's great. It just irks me a bit whenever people face absolute uncertainly and still veer towards a certain answer, simply because the other possibility doesn't make sense to them.
This entire thing was meant largely for DTG99 anyhow.
Me personally is the idea of Possibility. Imagining all the various things that could happen and waiting eagerly to see what comes next.
Do I know what's going to happen, no, and that's the beauty of it. I get to find out.
But I think with religion is that you try to explain the unknown with something you believe you know. Perhaps its the fear of uncertainty.