Which Worldview is Supported by Evidence?

[Jester]

Each of us has a worldview.
That is, each of us have a list of beliefs that get us through our day, on which we base our practical and ethical decisions and by which we find some sense of purpose in life.

I have noticed that many claim to have rejected all forms of theism on the grounds that they feel there is little or no evidence supporting it.
Assuming this is the case, which worldview (or weltanschauung) is supported by evidence?
And, of course, what is that evidence?

[Woland]

That is true, but there are implications that logically follow from our respective starting points. Since the assumptions of atheism inevitably lead to incoherence, and since the same is not true for theism, it follows that theism is the rationally preferable starting point.

Please substantiate your claim that "the assumptions of atheism" (what could you possibly be talking about?) lead to incoherence.

Please substantiate the claim that this is not true for theism.

If (since) you can't, please honorably retract the claims.

You're just assuming that you're correct and making fallacious arguments on this basis.

Can you show that atheism leads to incoherence?

Of course not. No theologian or apologist has ever done such a thing except in their own minds, which is irrelevant. Yet I would bet you almost anything that you'll just keep making these presumptuous affirmations - none of which are backed up by anything else than fallacious arguments - regardless.

Fallacies remain fallacies no matter how many times you say them, or how much you believe that your arguments don't qualify as such.

-Woland

[I AM ALL I AM]

Spilling over from another topic:

I believe that Life surrounds my physicality and that the Sum Totality of Life is ALL THAT IS.

The evidence of this is my experience of Life. Now you can "attempt" to CONvince me of a religious 'reality', yet my experience shows it to be 'fake' from simple observation / experiential knowledge of Life.

I actually don't see any evidence here.
Counter-intuitive as it may be, there is actually no evidence for the existence of the physical universe. Likewise, there is no evidence that the physical universe comprises the whole of reality.

In addition, I would also be interested in other parts of your worldview, which would be analogous to parts of a religious belief - such as your ethical stances and sense of meaning in life - and to discuss whether or not they are more evidenced than theism.

G'day Jester.

Unless you have a physical impairment to your eyes, then you actually do see the evidence, as it surrounds your physicality. You see the sun, moon and stars. You see trees, plants, animals, fish, birds and people. These are all aspects of Life.

Obviously there is a difference in our description of what 'evidence' is if you believe that there is no evidence for the physical universe. Or is there another meaning for "the physical universe" ?

Anyway, experiential knowledge evidences the physical universe. Your senses constantly report about it to you.

All of the individual aspects of Life added together give the Sum Totality, ALL THAT IS. I use the term ALL THAT IS for explicit reasons. One, it is self-descriptive. Two, it differentiates between an individuated aspect and the totality. This is similar to the numbers of an equation being the parts that make up the total / answer.

As there is no aspect of Life that isn't within ALL THAT IS, then each and every aspect is connected with ALL THAT IS. Said another way, ALL THAT IS is ONE.

Here again you can experience this. You drink water, eat food, breathe air. What is outside of your physicality, Life, interacts with your physicality to maintain its functioning. You are connected to the Life surrounding you. Or, said another way, we have an interdependent relationship with the Life that surrounds our physicality.

As ALL THAT IS is ONE, then there can be no duality, upon which ethics is based ('right' and 'wrong'). Our experience further highlights this through a triune representation. For instance, you are there, I am here, and there is that which surrounds you there and me here.

This can be recognised as the ONE having two extremities, such as, cold <> temperature <> hot. Cold and hot are both aspects of the one thing, temperature.

If you'd like to think of it another way, think of the process of mitosis.

Now, as to a "sense of meaning in life" ... I really am unsure of what you are asking here. Do you mean in my life ? The life I live ? The individuated life that surrounds me ? Or is there some of meaning ?

[Prisoner of the Sun]

I did read your entire post, but am going to cut for the sake of berevity.

This pre-assumes the existence of the physical universe. Yes, given it, we are biological creatures. Presuming the existence of the supernatural universe posed by the religions you mention leads us to believe that we are more in addition to that.
Neither universe, however, is evidenced.

Even assuming the physical universe, I see nothing which evidences the idea that the differences between us are illusory. I clearly occupy different physical space, and am composed of a different physical form, than other people.
As something of a tangent, the quotation attributed to Einstein is actually "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one." [1] This would be more in line with the idea that there is no evidence for the existence of a physical universe than that there are no differences between us.
In fact, the idea that we are synonymous with one another is derived from philosophies such as Buddhism, which reject the physical universe as strictly real.

This is an old philosophical question, the essence of which is "Can we believe our senses? Is there a physical reality, or are we all just part of a very large computer program (ala the Matrix)?"

I, personally, find this to be a very boring question (to paraphrase Eugenie Scott). I'm real...really! Just because the pattern of firing of the rods and cones in my retina will not exactly match the pattern in yours when looking at the same light source does not make the experience for either of us subjective. Bertrand Russel invited such sophists to test their disbelief in the material world by driving a car very fast into a brick wall. These people would find out about the incompressibily of solids first hand.

I find your use of the word evidence to be interesting. The word evidence is not usually made plural by adding an "s" unless used in a particular religious centext. Also the word "evidence" is a noun not a verb, so the addition of a "d" is usually unwarranted. "Evidences" are usually cited from various religious texts to provide support for theist positions, often when claiming miracles.

[Jester]

Except for extreme sophistry, that is not a pre-assumption, because we have the experiences of our senses. Those senses were giving you information to act upon long before you started having a philosophy. Although you deny that, it is evidence for the physical universe.

I'm not denying (or, in this particular moment, claiming) the existence of the physical universe. I am pointing out that the assumption that one is receiving essentially valid information from one's senses cannot be tested.
As such, one can't assume that it is valid evidence without previously assuming the existence of the physical universe. This is a very old philosophical concept.

[Jester]

Trimming again.

This is true, in fact Advaita Vedic philosophy, as expressed by Shankarachaya, holds "Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Atman and Brahman are one."

With his masterful statement "Only that is real that does not change nor cease to exist" he points out the complete unreality of the universe and all things in it.

Is there any basis, then, on which we can say that a particular worldview is evidenced?

However you are made of the same atoms, you respond biologically, the only difference is in your concepts...i.e. In the noological.

We all have similarities to one another. It cannot, however, be inferred from this that we are one and the same.
I certainly consider the concepts I hold to be true more defining of myself than which particular atoms happen to compose my body at this point in time.
As such, even assuming the physical, I see no evidence for the idea that differences are illusory.

Correct...I should have noted that I was paraphrasing Einstein. And if there is no evidence of the physical universe to the point where it is illusory then there is no differences between us...we are all illusory.

This seems to be more directly the claim that the physical world is illusory. If this is the case, I don't see why physical evidence should factor in to our considerations very strongly at all.

[Jester]

Duplicate.

[Jester]

Unless you have a physical impairment to your eyes, then you actually do see the evidence, as it surrounds your physicality. You see the sun, moon and stars. You see trees, plants, animals, fish, birds and people. These are all aspects of Life.

How do I know that my senses are giving me accurate information?
Don't I need to assume that I can trust them without any evidential reason?

As ALL THAT IS is ONE, then there can be no duality, upon which ethics is based ('right' and 'wrong'). Our experience further highlights this through a triune representation. For instance, you are there, I am here, and there is that which surrounds you there and me here.

I don't yet see an ethical guideline here. What exactly does this tell me about, say, whether or not eugenics is morally acceptable?

Now, as to a "sense of meaning in life" ... I really am unsure of what you are asking here. Do you mean in my life ? The life I live ? The individuated life that surrounds me ? Or is there some of meaning ?

Do you have a sense that your life is something good?
Do you feel that, when the human race is extinct and all matter ceases to exist in any recognizable form, things will have been any better because you were once alive?

[Jester]

This is an old philosophical question, the essence of which is "Can we believe our senses? Is there a physical reality, or are we all just part of a very large computer program (ala the Matrix)?"

I, personally, find this to be a very boring question (to paraphrase Eugenie Scott). I'm real...really! Just because the pattern of firing of the rods and cones in my retina will not exactly match the pattern in yours when looking at the same light source does not make the experience for either of us subjective. Bertrand Russel invited such sophists to test their disbelief in the material world by driving a car very fast into a brick wall. These people would find out about the incompressibily of solids first hand.

Yes, it is extremely old, but, if you find it boring, I will certainly not demand that you remain on this topic.
Russel's challenge here is what is known formally as an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. The fact that I might believe in the reality of the physical universe is no more evidence in favor of it than belief in God is evidence of his existence.
Moreover, I did not claim that the physical universe was illusory. I claimed that it was not evidenced. I feel that my actions and statements have been in accord with that claim.

Much more pertinently, this does not seem to me to present any worldview as evidenced. I don't think this was your intent, of course, but would like to know that we are driving toward the topic question. If not, then I will agree that this point, divorced from considering the effects it might have on other assertions, will be very boring.

I find your use of the word evidence to be interesting. The word evidence is not usually made plural by adding an "s" unless used in a particular religious centext. Also the word "evidence" is a noun not a verb, so the addition of a "d" is usually unwarranted. "Evidences" are usually cited from various religious texts to provide support for theist positions, often when claiming miracles.

The term "evidence" is actually both a verb and a noun. As such, adding a "d" is acceptable. Context (or the aforementioned "d") should signal readers as to which form is being used.
You are correct that adding an "s" is not generally accepted however. I apologize for my lapse in grammar if I did so (though I don't remember doing so here, I'm sure I have elsewhere).

[bernee51]

Trimming again.

This is true, in fact Advaita Vedic philosophy, as expressed by Shankarachaya, holds "Brahman is real. The universe is unreal. Atman and Brahman are one."

With his masterful statement "Only that is real that does not change nor cease to exist" he points out the complete unreality of the universe and all things in it.

Is there any basis, then, on which we can say that a particular worldview is evidenced?

If all ideas, thoughts, beliefs et al - all those elements from which a worldview is formulated - are constructs then what is 'evidence'?

If we act as if our constructs are 'real' then for all intents and purposes that's exactly what they are.

However you are made of the same atoms, you respond biologically, the only difference is in your concepts...i.e. In the noological.

We all have similarities to one another. It cannot, however, be inferred from this that we are one and the same.

How, other than our ideas and beliefs, do we differ?

I certainly consider the concepts I hold to be true more defining of myself than which particular atoms happen to compose my body at this point in time.

Is Jester now the same as Jester 10 years ago, 5 years ago, last week...where is the line of 'sameness' drawn? You may say that somewhere at the core there is a 'Jester' that does not change. I may say the same about Bernie. Advaita would say this is Atman. It is the fact that we are sentient, that we can ask the question 'who am I?'

As such, even assuming the physical, I see no evidence for the idea that differences are illusory.

If at the core we are the same, have the same root consciousness, and, other than that we are merely 'atoms and space' any differences are opinion.

Correct...I should have noted that I was paraphrasing Einstein. And if there is no evidence of the physical universe to the point where it is illusory then there is no differences between us...we are all illusory.

This seems to be more directly the claim that the physical world is illusory. If this is the case, I don't see why physical evidence should factor in to our considerations very strongly at all.

I would suggest it is more a case that what we make of the physical world is illusory. To her lover a pretty girl is an attraction, to an aesthete a distraction and to a wolf a good meal.

[Jester]

If all ideas, thoughts, beliefs et al - all those elements from which a worldview is formulated - are constructs then what is 'evidence'?

In this case, evidence would be something presented which is contingent on a basic world-view, but cannot be provided in support of it.

If we act as if our constructs are 'real' then for all intents and purposes that's exactly what they are.

I would mostly agree with this (though not, perhaps, with some extensions one could make from it).
It strikes me, actually, as rather like the term "faith", as many theists define it.

How, other than our ideas and beliefs, do we differ?

If we accept the physical universe as real, in many ways.
Whether we do or not, wouldn't differences of ideas be the most significant in any case?
To draw a quick analogy: we have similarities, just as I have similarities with, say, a dragon. I don't feel that this makes me a dragon.

This seems to be more directly the claim that the physical world is illusory. If this is the case, I don't see why physical evidence should factor in to our considerations very strongly at all.

I would suggest it is more a case that what we make of the physical world is illusory. To her lover a pretty girl is an attraction, to an aesthete a distraction and to a wolf a good meal.

Either way, I'd say that the idea that the physical world exists runs counter to the idea that we are all one and the same. My belief in the physical world leaves me feeling that, while many similarities can be pointed out, each person is distinct.
One may claim otherwise, but not without calling into question what is presented to me by my senses.
This is exactly what your aesthete is doing, isn't he? Refusing to believe that people are distinct simply because he perceives physical and spacial barriers with his senses?