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?

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Jester.

Thank you for the response.

Same to you!

G'day Jester.

Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy.

Well, you could bend over and touch your toes and I could kick your backside ... that could be one way you could have them tested.

You can "assume" anything you like. Personally, I doubt if it will help you in any way, shape or form.

If you aren't going to believe in your own senses, what are you going to believe in ?

Someone else's ?

Personally, I do tend to trust my senses.
However, the test you suggest is not actually valid. It is using one's senses in order to test them. Senses cannot test themselves.

I find your question here very pertinent, actually. People trust their senses, not because there really is a logical reason for doing so, but because we don't really see another option. This is what many would call a faith assumption.

By using something you are testing it. Every time you use your motor vehicle, you are testing its functionality.

Actually, I'd like to know how anything can be tested without the use of it in the test or the senses to verify the results.

I disagree that there isn't a logical reason for trusting in our senses. Personally, I find it completely logical to trust in the senses as they continually supply me with verifiable information.

Do your senses supply you with 'false' information ?

Or is it the interpretation of the information supplied by the senses that is 'false' ?

What your senses report to you is simply that, a report of something. The report is an interpretation of What Is present by the senses (eyes report vision, ears report sound, etc). The report isn't What Is.

Does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it ?

What Is isn't dependent upon the report. The report is dependent upon What Is, for without What Is being present there would be no sensory report.

As What Is (the physical world / reality) is present prior to the sensory report, then it logically follows that what ever occurs after the report of the senses (such as a mental interpretation of the report) does not effect What Is.

Anyone can choose to not believe in What Is (the physical world) and what their senses report to them about What Is (the physical world), though this does not stop What Is (the physical world) from BEING reality.

To trust your senses is simply to accept that they are reporting about What Is to you in a continual stream of information.

Personally, I would look for a different interpretation of what the senses are reporting prior to casting doubt upon the senses, though of course this is an individual choice and anyone can disregard the physical world and what their senses report to them if they so desire.

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

That's because there isn't one. For what purpose do you require a "guideline" ?

One of the simplest of question that you can ask yourself is, "Does this thought / action / word (or combination thereof) facilitate a re-presentation of Who I Am choosing to BE ?".

Instead of concerning yourself with another's instructions for you to follow (guidelines), why not make your own choices ?

So, does eugenics, in whatever manner you choose to utilise it, facilitate a re-presentation of Who You Are choosing to BE ?

From moment to moment, this is the choice that you continually face. It isn't up to me to make this decision for you, nor is it up to anyone else. It is solely your choice to make, even if it is to follow another's instructions.

I agree that we each have a choice, but you seem here to be arguing nihilism.
That is fine, if you actually don't believe in any sense of ethics, but I find that most - even most who claim to be nihilists - would object to a person, say, killing innocent children.
If it is merely a matter of each of us making a choice, however, that should not be a problem.

It is all about the choice of Who You Are being, so yeah, no problem.

This is basically the premise of having a religious world view ... that is, you follow the instructions of another. In regards to the christian religion, these instructions are apparently written / inspired by the Creator of all Life, though this has never been confirmed by those supplying the apparent instruction book, and the Creator of all Life apparently is unwilling to confirm this as well. Which in essence means, that a christian is following the instructions of a book that they do not know the author of, and are further instructed on exactly how to interpret and follow the 'guidelines' written within it.

This is not a terribly accurate summary of the Christian concept of ethics.
First, it is based in the idea of ethics as objective fact, not as following the ideas of someone else.
And second, whatever is or isn't "confirmed" regarding this concept, I've not yet received any confirmation of either the existence of the physical universe or the idea that there are no objective ethics, though both of these positions have been taken. As such, I see no reason to criticize any lack of confirmation you may find in other worldviews.

Ethics is based in the ideology of dualism, that is, 'right' and 'wrong', 'good' and 'evil', etc.

The christian religion is based of a dogma of dualism, that is, 'God' vs 'Satan', 'right' and 'wrong', 'good' and 'evil', etc

No individual that I know of has come to knowing about the christian religion without having first been taught it by another, for the christian religion is not self-evident.

Who was it that made up the ideology of the christian religion ?

The follower definitely didn't.

Therefore, any individual following the christian religion is not an instigator of their world view. Not being the instigator of what is considered 'right' or 'wrong' in the belief system that they are following, then their idea of ethics is also a following of another's ideas ... so how could it be "based in the idea of ethics as objective fact" and "not as following the ideas of someone else" ?

Your senses have confirmed the existence of the physical universe for you, and continue to do so. If you choose to ignore the report that they give to you ... well, there's nothing I can do about that as it isn't my choice to make.

You say "criticize", I say "describe".

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?

A "sense" as in sensory perception ?

Both 'good' and 'bad' are subjective choices. It is also a duality. As it states in my signature, when paired opposites defines your beliefs, your beliefs will imprison you.

I'm aware that this is your position, but I've received no support for the idea that these things are simply subjective. Nor am I convinced of the truth of your signature line. It seems to me that I can state almost any idea either in terms of paired opposites (such as stating your view in terms of "independence versus confomity"), or in some other way. I don't, as of yet, find any wisdom in it.

They are words ... of course they are subjective. Can you point to them in the physical world ?

They are an idea of how to describe the report from your senses. The description is not the sensory report, the same as the sensory report is not the physical universe.

One person can describe the weather as 'bad' because it is raining, while another describes it as 'good' because it is raining ... which one is being objective ?

Or are they both being subjective ?

The one person that thinks the rain is 'bad' because the family picnic has been called off. The other person thinks the rain is 'good' because it feeds the seedlings in the garden that they had planted. Which one is 'right' and which one is 'wrong' ?

Or are they both 'right, or both 'wrong' ?

When beliefs are based in duality, then they are subjective based, that is, one individuals choices, based from their belief in duality, consigns them to following that belief, even when it is not beneficial for the sustainability of the functionality of their physicality. A suicide bomber is (though extreme) a prime example of this.

Coincidentally, a religious dogma of dualism is the basis of the beliefs of a suicide bomber. Go figure, huh.

The idea is to see beyond things as paired opposites. Based on a religious world view, of course you will see things as paired opposites. Yet as I have already pointed out, cold and hot are simply extremes of the one thing, temperature. They aren't opposites, they are differentiations within temperature, as royal blue and sky blue are differentiations within the colour blue.

Ultimately, the words are simply descriptions of What Is, and thus are subject to an individuals interpretation of what their senses report to them.

When you remove the description, then What Is can be recognised for what it is without subjectiveness interfering in the process.

Cannabis is a great example to use here. When you remove all of the subjective descriptions, what are you left with ?

Something growing from the ground. A plant. It is neither 'good' nor 'bad', 'right' nor 'wrong'. It simply IS.

Funnily enough, because of their following of the religious dogma of dualism that christianity world view is based in, many actually judge their 'God' through the judging of the cannabis plant being 'bad', as if their 'God' made a mistake by creating it. They then help institute laws based upon the judging of their 'God's' creation as 'bad', thus making one of their 'God's' creation illegal. Go figure, huh.

Now, if someone wanted to manipulate people, then instilling their description of reality to follow in people would be an easy way to achieve their desire of control, and thus manipulation of how the people perceive and interact with the Life that surrounds them. Basing the description in duality ensures that the people it is instilled into will think in an 'us vs them' mentality.

The "wisdom" that you didn't "find" is simply to avoid being controlled by freeing yourself from any belief structure based in dualism.

Personally, I am free of another's subjective labelling of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. It has no relevance to me apart from describing that they are choosing to be imprisoned by their belief in dualities.

Here's something that I wrote around 10 years ago now when I was contemplating these concepts and was working out my own world view / belief structure ...

I did read your claims. It actually seemed odd to me that the idea that one should be believing toward all possibility was, if I understood correctly, being used to argue that we shouldn't accept anything that is not physical.
Thus far, I've seen no evidence at all that non-physical things do not exist.

ALL THAT IS is ONE, it is the Sum Totality of everything, and thus there is nothing outside of it. If ONE thing is possible, then ALL is possible, for ALL is ONE.

Now, as ALL is possible, it becomes a question of probability instead of possibility.

As such, the christian biblical world view is possible, though when examined closely can be recognised as improbable based upon the claims it presents.

I do not recognise where you came up with the idea "that we shouldn't accept anything that is not physical" from what I wrote. Neither did I state "that non-physical things do not exist".

Thoughts and words are "non-physical", though they can be re-presented physically.

Hopefully this goes towards recognising that this world view cannot be comprehended from a religious mindset. There is no one that you have to 'please', no one that you have to 'worship', 'adore', nor anyone that you 'have to do something for'.

I'm inclined to believe that no worldview can be fully comprehended from any contrary worldview.

Exactly. As I stated ...

"IF YOUR BELIEF IS OPPOSED TO ANYTHING, THEN YOU WILL BE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND UNABLE TO SEE THAT WHICH YOU ARE OPPOSED TO. "

To be able to comprehend something, simply believe that it is a possibility. Once it becomes a possibility to you, then you can define the probability without subjectiveness distorting the report from your senses.

If you are not the body, then how can you assume that Who You Are ceases to exist when the body reforms (what is commonly called 'dies') ?

Personally, I do not assume this.

Maybe a rephrasing of the original question might sort this out then.

Do you notice that your thoughts, shown in the questions that you ask, show me some of the premises of your beliefs ?

Einstein apparently stated, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.", and, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.".

I agree, but don't see how this is analogous to my questions.

You are attempting to comprehend the world view that I present from the basis of it fitting into the world view that you already prescribe to. Continuing to ask questions from such a position is using the same kind of thinking that precludes any other world view as being possible. By repeating this you will receive the same results that you have previously.

How can comprehension of what I present to you be achieved from this basis ?

I mention this because you will not comprehend this world view from a religious mind set. Your questions appear to be attempting to 'fit' this world view onto the 'template' that is your religious world view.

This seems to be the secular version of "you won't understand why God exists until you believe in him".
Yes, it is true that no worldview will really be deeply understood from outside it. This, however, does not apply more fully to a secular weltanshauung than to a religious one.

If your belief will not recognise the possibility of something, then no matter what evidence is presented to you, until you change the belief you will not recognise it. To you, it will "seem" to be something else.

From this world view, you give meaning to your life.

There is no external 'God', no set of instructions / guidelines.

It's all a choice ... self-determination.

This, I clearly do not understand. I can understand that self-determination can make someone feel like life is meaningful, but I don't see why it gives any actual meaning to one's life.

Who has the ability to give meaning to anything that you think, say or do meaning ?

What is "actual meaning" ?

Self-determination means that you are the one that determines yourself. If you aren't the one determining the meaning in your life, then who is ?

All judgements that I make are for me to think, say, act, or not.

Someone else's judgements are for them to think, say, act, or not.

The judgements that I make are a self-determination of Who I Am choosing to BE. If I give meaning to my life, how can anyone else's judgement have precedence for me over my own judgement ?

Only you can give meaning to the life that you live. It's your choice.

[JoeyKnothead]

Meaning and religious belief.

We've seen more'n once that some theists use an argument along the lines of "Either God, or no meaning". What is this curious notion, and what does it even mean?

I propose that in the lack of nefarious intent, it is an argument borne of one's own opinion regarding what constitutes meaning, but is being projected onto others who may not share the same definitions or criteria for "meaning".

Is it "meaningful" that I am ultimately a collection of atoms? Not much meaning there, is there? However, when I realize that this particular collection of atoms constitutes me, then that's sufficient "meaning" for me.

It is my contention the theist who uses this argument is likely unable to comprehend a world without God - typically to exclusively their chosen god. When the theist ties so much of their emotional energy, so much of their 'ego' into their beliefs, what other conclusion can be made than that theist derives his entire sense of "meaning" from his religious beliefs? If there's "other meaning" in the world, what does this say of a given theist's beliefs? These beliefs are comprimised, threatened even, by any other "meaning" than what the chosen theist accepts for himself, but seeks to project (sometimes through force of law) onto others.

This, to me, is a dangerous notion not to argue against. When all "meaning" is derived from "God", then humans no longer control their destiny. What "meaning" is there in climbing mountains, unless one is there to plant their religious icon? What "meaning" is there in catch and release fishing unless one is somehow seeking to let the fish know "the good news"?

Theists, atheists, and ignostics all do fine finding "meaning" where they will. It seems though as only the theist is so concerned about what "meaning" others may find in life - to the point of declaring some can have "no meaning" in their lives . When you don't share my values regarding "meaning", you potentially weaken, devalue, or even eliminate what meaning I may find. Your concepts of meaning have the potential to upset the apple cart of my "world view".

Your concept of meaning may cause me some personal grief. Where your "meaning" is different from mine, it is counter to all I've been told, all I've read, and all I know about where I find meaning. Theists certainly threaten my understanding - where they will declare that as an atheist I must find no "meaning" in my life - unless I accept their preferred brand of their preferred reverence for their preferred belief in their preferred god.

Theists, find your meaning, but quit trying to say others can't have just as valid an understanding of what is meaningful, and worthy of pursuit.

This atheist finds meaning in having a Model American for a son. In having two grandbabies I'd separate the scoundrel from his life for hurting. I find meaning in smoking some skunk and playing the guitar - poorly. I find meaning in these debates - where wouldn't ya know it the whole dang intarwebz are wrong, and it has fallen on my shoulders to "show them the light". I find meaning in my life in work, in play, in romance, in nigh on every area - except where I don't accept belief in a god for which I see no valid evidence.

I can't escape thinking this line of thought is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize or dismiss the opinions - and that's all that supports "meaning" - of so many of my fellow humans. So you believe in God. So you're going to Heaven and I'm on a short bus to Hell. Just don't try to tell me I've got no "meaning" in my life.

This "God or no meaning" line of 'reasoning' is petty, shortsighted, and ignorant. It must stop if we're ever to attempt to actually present what we consider worthy of "meaning". When you, the theist, tell me my life has "no meaning", you are insulting the good I've done, insulting the help I've given others at some cost to myself, and frankly, insulting my intelligence by declaring your belief in that which can't be shown to exist somehow offers you a greater insight into what is "meaningful" in my life.

[EduChris]

...conglomerations of meaningless particles of matter, acting strictly according to the laws of physics as understood today, do not have any true agency or volition and therefore no meaningful process of "reasoning" can be adduced. Conglomerations of matter simply operate mechanistically and do not "choose" anything.

Your premises are granted, but I still don't quite understand how you conclude that reasoning cannot be adduced...Surely in that there are 'laws', and that we have 'intelligence', pattern recognition and such allow us to develop what is essentially 'logic'...

If we had no true agency, no genuine volition, then every single thought or perception we ever had would not be "ours" at all, since we could have no true ownership; the thoughts and perceptions would be there, and we might subjectively believe that we had ownership, but in reality even this subjective belief would be strictly the result of prior external forces or mathematical equations or whatever. "Reason" and "logic" simply cannot apply to wind up dolls or fancy CD recordings or stardust or conglomerations of physical particles; rather, they require ownership and agency at some level.

...This is a very difficult debate to have without first considering what exactly each thinks they are talking about. I would posit that 'logic' is innate in any determinable system or any probabilistic system due to the definitions of both being circularly dependent on the other. I would also posit that intelligence as we know it is in fact merely a subset of a particular system...

If every thought or "positing" that enters your mind were strictly the result of external forces and deterministic equations, then such "positing" could only be empty and devoid of meaning, since there would be no rational agent involved. "Meaning," like logic and reason, is empty without agency and volition.

...An interesting question to ask however is would it be possible for logic to self-validate in a system where logic fails? (I'm not trying to argue from ignorance so much as question what parameters are necessarily existent for logic to be viable.)...

Within a contingent reality, logic can only be validated when you have agency and volition operating according to a set of axioms which are not themselves self-refuting. This is not an "objective" validation, since our best thoughts may or may not correspond to objective reality; instead, "agency, volition, and sufficiently coherent axioms" represent the bare minimum requirements for logic itself to be subjectively viable.

This is in fact why most non-theists choose to believe that we humans are "something more" than mere automatons.

I still don't see how you get from there to here...If you'd not mind dumbing it down, I'd greatly appreciate it...

Regardless of what people might say in terms of scientific theory, on a practical they live as though they believe they have genuine agency and volition. In other words, they live as though they are more than "meaningless stardust" or conglomerations of particles operating strictly according to the known laws of physics. Since they live in a manner which goes beyond what can be deduced (even in principle) from known scientific laws, they are in fact operating according to faith. They act as if they are "something more."

...In making the move to subjectivity, I still try to avoid subjectivity by relying on as few basic premises as possible...I feel that Theism inherently makes larger leaps with more vague and questionable premises than I strive to. That said, the same could probably said about Non-Theism in general, but I believe that Non-Theism is inherent from being as sceptical as possible in every conceivable way...

Either theism is true and non-theism is false, or vice-versa. Deciding for one alternative is the same as deciding against the other, and there is no actual, testable, repeatable empirical evidence for either. I don't see how the proposition, "Intelligence can arise from non-intelligent sources" is intrinsically more skeptical than "Intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligent sources." If anything, the former is less skeptical (and therefore more optimistic) about the potentialities of non-intelligent sources.

I have made no attempt to do argue that a non-meaningless universe automatically validates logic and reason; instead, I have argued that if we have any hope at all of justifying logic and reason, we must accept a worldview which is potentially capable of accounting for logic and reason.

Well, one would first have to have reason to believe that it could possibly be capable of explaining that. Without that, why not simply believe that logic works and is valid for no reason?...What in your eyes constitutes an 'explanation'?

Our axioms must be sufficient, in principle, of accounting for logic and reason--and this entails also accounting for true agency and genuine volition. If our axioms do not account for these, but yet we continue to act as though we are volitional agents, then we are actually adopting clandestine, unacknowledged axioms. In the case of many non-theists here on this forum, the practical outcome is that the non-theist claims that she has "fewer" axioms than the theist, even though the sum total of her axioms (acknowledged and unacknowledged) equal or exceed the number of theistic axioms.

...the concept of meaning is being thrown around a lot, so I think it would be appropriate to have a viable, applicable definition of meaning to work with.

"Meaning" is that which arises from true agency and genuine volition. Objective meaning corresponds to objective reality (whatever that is); subjective meaning corresponds to the creative acts and choices made by volitional agents.

[LiamOS]

If we had no true agency, no genuine volition, then every single thought or perception we ever had would not be "ours" at all, since we could have no true ownership; the thoughts and perceptions would be there, and we might subjectively believe that we had ownership, but in reality even this subjective belief would be strictly the result of prior external forces or mathematical equations or whatever.

Granted.
Is there any reason to believe that this is not the case?

"Reason" and "logic" simply cannot apply to wind up dolls or fancy CD recordings or stardust or conglomerations of physical particles; rather, they require ownership and agency at some level.

I fail to see why this is the case.

If every thought or "positing" that enters your mind were strictly the result of external forces and deterministic equations, then such "positing" could only be empty and devoid of meaning, since there would be no rational agent involved. "Meaning," like logic and reason, is empty without agency and volition.

Of course, but I still fail to see why the same is true of logic and reason.
Also, assuming that the universe operates probabilistically as opposed to deterministically, would you consider 'meaning' inane?

I also get the feeling that you're also poking fun at my use of the word 'posit'. Perhaps you're not, but the post reads as though you are.

Within a contingent reality, logic can only be validated when you have agency and volition operating according to a set of axioms which are not themselves self-refuting. This is not an "objective" validation, since our best thoughts may or may not correspond to objective reality; instead, "agency, volition, and sufficiently coherent axioms" represent the bare minimum requirements for logic itself to be subjectively viable.

Why can logic not be used by a system itself(us) to determine aspects of the system? Why does the use of logic necessitate some sort of metaphysical(for lack of a better word) aspect?

Regardless of what people might say in terms of scientific theory, on a practical they live as though they believe they have genuine agency and volition.

Of course, to do otherwise makes little sense in the current world.

In other words, they live as though they are more than "meaningless stardust" or conglomerations of particles operating strictly according to the known laws of physics. Since they live in a manner which goes beyond what can be deduced (even in principle) from known scientific laws, they are in fact operating according to faith. They act as if they are "something more."

This is because it is true in practicality. If we consider the case of a person deciding on where to eat lunch, they can 'choose'. It may be the case that it is not actually a choice, but we do not yet have the capabilities to predict the outcome.
Acting as though one does not have a choice also makes little sense realistically. If I acted as if I had no choice in any matter, I likely wouldn't do anything and just starve to death in bed.

I don't believe acting like that is acting according to faith, as it does not actually require one to believe that they have free agency. They merely have to consider the concept of choice viable in 'real life' situations.

Either theism is true and non-theism is false, or vice-versa.

With a concrete definition of God, yes.

Deciding for one alternative is the same as deciding against the other, and there is no actual, testable, repeatable empirical evidence for either.

At the risk of sounding childish and generic, the same argument can be put forward about fairies.
One of the propositions is a null hypothesis of sorts, and given that God is not usually defined(Or ever defined to an acceptable degree in my opinion), Non-Theism follows first.

I don't see how the proposition, "Intelligence can arise from non-intelligent sources" is intrinsically more skeptical than "Intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligent sources." If anything, the former is less skeptical (and therefore more optimistic) about the potentialities of non-intelligent sources.

This is an interesting point to consider. In the same manner, wetness can arise from something which isn't wet.
One really has to define intelligence to a degree where such an argument can become meaningful before using it, because I would deem it obvious that 'intelligence' is an emergent feature in the same way as wetness.

How are you defining intelligence?

Our axioms must be sufficient, in principle, of accounting for logic and reason--and this entails also accounting for true agency and genuine volition.

I'm sorry, but I really don't believe that this is true. Could you possibly give a very simple, step-by-step outline of how you arrive at this conclusion?

I'd also be interested to hear the opinions of others on this matter, because it may just be me.

If our axioms do not account for these, but yet we continue to act as though we are volitional agents, then we are actually adopting clandestine, unacknowledged axioms.

Yes, but not necessarily in our philosophies. There is a massive difference in believing you have free will and just accepting the concept as applicable societally.
In my vague musings on the subject, I also find that with the explicit assumption of absolute determinism, one would still have to act(largely) identically to one who believes in free will.

"Meaning" is that which arises from true agency and genuine volition. Objective meaning corresponds to objective reality (whatever that is); subjective meaning corresponds to the creative acts and choices made by volitional agents.

Very well. Perhaps it may be wise to confine our discussion to the ties between agency and logic for the moment, as I don't see us getting particularly far without first agreeing on that.

[EduChris]

"Reason" and "logic" simply cannot apply to wind up dolls or fancy CD recordings or stardust or conglomerations of physical particles; rather, they require ownership and agency at some level.

I fail to see why this is the case.

Can you provide a counterexample so that I understand your objection?

If every thought or "positing" that enters your mind were strictly the result of external forces and deterministic equations, then such "positing" could only be empty and devoid of meaning, since there would be no rational agent involved. "Meaning," like logic and reason, is empty without agency and volition.

Of course, but I still fail to see why the same is true of logic and reason.

Again, please provide a counterexample of how logic and reason can exist without meaning.

...Also, assuming that the universe operates probabilistically as opposed to deterministically, would you consider 'meaning' inane?

Only if there were no agency or volition.

...I also get the feeling that you're also poking fun at my use of the word 'posit'. Perhaps you're not, but the post reads as though you are...

My apologies; there was no conscious intention to poke fun. If anything I was simply thinking to myself that there can be no "positing" without a volitional agent who "posits."

Within a contingent reality, logic can only be validated when you have agency and volition operating according to a set of axioms which are not themselves self-refuting. This is not an "objective" validation, since our best thoughts may or may not correspond to objective reality; instead, "agency, volition, and sufficiently coherent axioms" represent the bare minimum requirements for logic itself to be subjectively viable.

Why can logic not be used by a system itself(us) to determine aspects of the system? Why does the use of logic necessitate some sort of metaphysical(for lack of a better word) aspect?

You can construct a worldview in any fashion you like. What you can't do is to fail to enumerate all of your axioms, and then compare your total number of axioms against someone else who has enumerated all of their axioms. I'm not saying that you do this, but it does happen all the time here on this forum.

Regardless of what people might say in terms of scientific theory, on a practical they live as though they believe they have genuine agency and volition.

Of course, to do otherwise makes little sense in the current world.

If we're going to live as if we have agency and volition, then we ought to account for agency and volition in our worldview. We aren't being consistent if we act as though we have free will even though our worldview doesn't account for agency and volition.

In other words, they live as though they are more than "meaningless stardust" or conglomerations of particles operating strictly according to the known laws of physics. Since they live in a manner which goes beyond what can be deduced (even in principle) from known scientific laws, they are in fact operating according to faith. They act as if they are "something more."

This is because it is true in practicality. If we consider the case of a person deciding on where to eat lunch, they can 'choose'. It may be the case that it is not actually a choice, but we do not yet have the capabilities to predict the outcome. Acting as though one does not have a choice also makes little sense realistically. If I acted as if I had no choice in any matter, I likely wouldn't do anything and just starve to death in bed...I don't believe acting like that is acting according to faith, as it does not actually require one to believe that they have free agency. They merely have to consider the concept of choice viable in 'real life' situations.

Frankly I don't think it is possible for someone to actually believe that they lack agency and volition. They can't live consistently that way, as you admit, so why should they believe something that they know is impossible in the practical sense?

In my view, people who live as though they had agency and volition, and yet who claim to deny any belief in agency and volition, they do this because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They deny these in theory (so as to artificially limit the number of their axioms) but they make use of these in daily practice.

Either theism is true and non-theism is false, or vice-versa.

With a concrete definition of God, yes.

I'm willing to refine my definition of God if necessary, but for starters I will say that God is the ultimate, absolute, non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire cosmos. God might be more than that, but certainly not less.

Deciding for one alternative is the same as deciding against the other, and there is no actual, testable, repeatable empirical evidence for either.

At the risk of sounding childish and generic, the same argument can be put forward about fairies.

The difference lies in the explanatory scope of "God" vs. "Fairies." I've not heard anyone claim that fairies are "the ultimate, absolute, non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire cosmos." Fairies are just "things" within the entire set of other "things"; God, on the other hand, is not just another item in a set of "things," but rather the metaphysical non-contingent reality within which all sets of "things" find their contingent existent.

One of the propositions is a null hypothesis of sorts, and given that God is not usually defined(Or ever defined to an acceptable degree in my opinion), Non-Theism follows first.

To me the null hypothesis is that "intelligence cannot arise from strictly non-intelligent sources." To go beyond this would require either proof or at least an acknowledged leap of faith.

I don't see how the proposition, "Intelligence can arise from non-intelligent sources" is intrinsically more skeptical than "Intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligent sources." If anything, the former is less skeptical (and therefore more optimistic) about the potentialities of non-intelligent sources.

This is an interesting point to consider. In the same manner, wetness can arise from something which isn't wet.

Isn't wetness (liquidity) at least a potential state for any element--given the proper conditions of temperature and pressure?

One really has to define intelligence to a degree where such an argument can become meaningful before using it, because I would deem it obvious that 'intelligence' is an emergent feature in the same way as wetness...

Maybe we should work on a definitions for both intelligence and emergence. It isn't clear to me that "emergence" is anything other than a label given to some process which isn't understood.

How are you defining intelligence?...

"Creative, purposeful volition and imagination" is a start. Maybe you can help me refine this as necessary?

Our axioms must be sufficient, in principle, of accounting for logic and reason--and this entails also accounting for true agency and genuine volition.

I'm sorry, but I really don't believe that this is true. Could you possibly give a very simple, step-by-step outline of how you arrive at this conclusion?

What I'm trying to do is to ensure that there is consistency between one's acknowledged axioms, on the one hand, and the way one actually lives. You don't have to account for them in your worldview if you're not going to make practical use of those things in your daily life--but if you are going to make use of such things, your axioms should account for them so that the total number of axioms does not remain artificially low.

I'd also be interested to hear the opinions of others on this matter, because it may just be me.

It seems to me that all theists do account for them (although they do not necessarily make use of them) whereas the majority of non-theists make use of them without accounting for them in their axioms.

If our axioms do not account for these, but yet we continue to act as though we are volitional agents, then we are actually adopting clandestine, unacknowledged axioms.

Yes, but not necessarily in our philosophies. There is a massive difference in believing you have free will and just accepting the concept as applicable societally...In my vague musings on the subject, I also find that with the explicit assumption of absolute determinism, one would still have to act(largely) identically to one who believes in free will

This gets back the whole "having your cake and eating it too." What might change for us on this forum if everyone prefaced their arguments with "I am arguing as I do because I cannot help it, I am compelled by external forces and have no agency or volition one way or another; you also, dear readers, have no agency or volition and therefore you will respond to this argument in accordance with factors completely beyond your control"?

"Meaning" is that which arises from true agency and genuine volition. Objective meaning corresponds to objective reality (whatever that is); subjective meaning corresponds to the creative acts and choices made by volitional agents.

Very well. Perhaps it may be wise to confine our discussion to the ties between agency and logic for the moment, as I don't see us getting particularly far without first agreeing on that.

Probably true. I'll await your counterexample that shows how logic can apply without agency and volition--or without "meaning," which is itself dependent on agency and volition.

[LiamOS]

I'm tired and this is a long post, so just pretend it looks like a rainbow.

Can you provide a counterexample so that I understand your objection?

Again, please provide a counterexample of how logic and reason can exist without meaning.

Well, a 'wind-up doll' is inherently logical as it is determinable.
I can't quite provide a counterexample as I don't know how logic is defined, and I would naturally assume the universe as we know it to be such an example.

My objection is largely that I don't see how you have drawn your conclusion.

I also still get the feeling that how we perceive logic is somewhat different, and that this issue is at the root of our problem.

My apologies; there was no conscious intention to poke fun. If anything I was simply thinking to myself that there can be no "positing" without a volitional agent who "posits."

Why not? Is it not possible that the universe itself can, in some cases, create something capable of what we know as positing? Does intelligence necessitate meaning? Is it not possible that logic is derived from the apparent deterministic nature that the universe itself is 'experiencing'?

You can construct a worldview in any fashion you like. What you can't do is to fail to enumerate all of your axioms, and then compare your total number of axioms against someone else who has enumerated all of their axioms. I'm not saying that you do this, but it does happen all the time here on this forum.

Not trying to be pedantic(Perhaps I don't need to try. ), but I don't think this answers the quote to which it was assigned.

If we're going to live as if we have agency and volition, then we ought to account for agency and volition in our worldview. We aren't being consistent if we act as though we have free will even though our worldview doesn't account for agency and volition.

Indeed. If I were to be entirely consistent with my worldview, I'd have killed multiple people by now.
On occasion, there are functional reasons to be inconsistent.

Frankly I don't think it is possible for someone to actually believe that they lack agency and volition. They can't live consistently that way, as you admit, so why should they believe something that they know is impossible in the practical sense?

This is a funny concept. Let's say that I somehow know that everything is determined(God told me or something).
Would I have any reason to act as though I didn't? My philosophy would change, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to change how one acts based on whether or not they believe life to be determined.

In my view, people who live as though they had agency and volition, and yet who claim to deny any belief in agency and volition, they do this because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They deny these in theory (so as to artificially limit the number of their axioms) but they make use of these in daily practice.

I do it not to have my cake and eat it, but because there is no functional choice(heh) in the matter. I, as an entity, am far too complicated to consider in a deterministic view.
If I was to simply say: "You know what, there's no point in doing anything because whatever I do is determined." I would quite obviously die.
Why is it so hypocritical to function as a human being while believing that there is actually nothing about your decisions that is not practically causal?

I'm willing to refine my definition of God if necessary, but for starters I will say that God is the ultimate, absolute, non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire cosmos. God might be more than that, but certainly not less.

This makes for a funny circumstance.
I would not accept such an entity as a 'God', but I would accept that it can logically be assumed to exist(Whether it does is another matter.). Others would consider it 'God'; some of my deistic friends, for example.

I don't think believing that something which makes no philosophical difference can be called a 'God' is constructive. Your definition above would fall into this category as it could potentially be any number of things.

The difference lies in the explanatory scope of "God" vs. "Fairies." I've not heard anyone claim that fairies are "the ultimate, absolute, non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire cosmos." Fairies are just "things" within the entire set of other "things"; God, on the other hand, is not just another item in a set of "things," but rather the metaphysical non-contingent reality within which all sets of "things" find their contingent existent.

If that's all God is, then assuming our analysis of existence is appropriate, God exists.
I don't think that's at all explanatory, though.

To me the null hypothesis is that "intelligence cannot arise from strictly non-intelligent sources." To go beyond this would require either proof or at least an acknowledged leap of faith.

Okay, but what is intelligence?

You appear to have the belief that intelligence is something more than physical, as many Theists do. I don't think that such a belief is warranted given the evident physical nature of the brain and the demonstrable connection of thought with the brain.
As I've stated before, wetness has arisen from non-wetness. If we consider that intelligence is emergent, is it not plausible that it would arise from non-intelligence?

Considering this, how is it that you are defining intelligence?

Isn't wetness (liquidity) at least a potential state for any element--given the proper conditions of temperature and pressure?

Largely, yes.
Isn't intelligence a potential property of a large collection of atoms organised in the correct manner with appropriate energies?

Maybe we should work on a definitions for both intelligence and emergence. It isn't clear to me that "emergence" is anything other than a label given to some process which isn't understood.

Emergence is usually the process of something apparently complex forming from a basic system of interactions. This is the context in which I've always been using it, anyway, correct or not.
As for intelligence, I believe it to merely be a property of a certain system of interactions.

"Creative, purposeful volition and imagination" is a start. Maybe you can help me refine this as necessary?

Before I try, can you show that this is actually applicable to anything within the universe?
What I'm implicitly asking is are you capable of demonstrating that it would be impossible for the world we know to arise through some fundamental interactions?

What I'm trying to do is to ensure that there is consistency between one's acknowledged axioms, on the one hand, and the way one actually lives. You don't have to account for them in your worldview if you're not going to make practical use of those things in your daily life--but if you are going to make use of such things, your axioms should account for them so that the total number of axioms does not remain artificially low.

Why must this be the case?
My philosophy is such that I can make practical use of many things which benefit me physically or otherwise regardless of whether or not I agree with it. I don't think that certain laws are appropriate, but I would have no problem using them to my benefit. In the same manner, I deem that operating as if I were a free agent to be most beneficial to me as I have been societally and genetically conditioned to operate appropriately in this manner.

This gets back the whole "having your cake and eating it too." What might change for us on this forum if everyone prefaced their arguments with "I am arguing as I do because I cannot help it, I am compelled by external forces and have no agency or volition one way or another; you also, dear readers, have no agency or volition and therefore you will respond to this argument in accordance with factors completely beyond your control"?

I still don't think that one has to just sit unmoving if they don't believe in free will.

Probably true. I'll await your counterexample that shows how logic can apply without agency and volition--or without "meaning," which is itself dependent on agency and volition.

Don't hold your breath.
I'm of the opinion that logic is derived from such systems, so it follows for me.
I'm still not quite sure either how you're assuming that logic necessitates some kind of meaning.

[jgh7]

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?

Often times, evidence comes through personal experience for religious people and is not given to the world as a whole. Those who get what they consider a sufficient personal experience have all the evidence they need to rest confidently in their worldview. I am not one of those lucky people. I don't know if you are or not.

For someone like me who sees the world as it is and can't confidently cling to anything as being the absolute truth, I'm left to my logic to figure out what the most logical view is to have. Yes, I find logic to be the supreme method for confidently coming to a worldview.

Start broad and work your way into details. Could a God exist? Perhaps, perhaps not. An important thing I realized is that this is not the truly important question to ask. This is the important question:

If a God does exist, does this God care for us and have a plan for our well being in the afterlife?

An afterlife is important to me because if I cease to exist when I die, then everything is pointless to me including God's existence or non-existence. I have no way of proving if an afterlife exists or does not exist, so it remains a vague possibility. O well, good enough.

Now, on to whether or not a God exists that cares for us and has a plan for our well being. This can go into more depth; and I believe actual evidence does exist. Our well being is not just in the afterlife; it's in this life as well. I ask myself how a God could help our well-being in this life. Perhaps He guides us on the right path when we ask for his guidance. Perhaps he rescues us when we ask for his help from danger or suffering.

I ultimately conclude that as far as I can know, there is no way of knowing if this God is concerned for our well being. Even if this God does act in mysterious ways to help us, He does so in a way such that it looks like He never helped at all. When fortunate things happen to me, they in no way seem to point to God's intervention in some way over the standard set of causal reactions that take place in our physical world. But as I previously stated, I believe there is actual evidence to allow us to make definite conclusions about this possible God. Here it is:

Many innocent people suffer horribly at the hands of others and die senseless deaths. It is not close-minded to acknowledge that many of them died very scared and alone and longing for God's comfort while never receiving it. This one powerful acknowledgment is sufficient evidence to let me know that I can't trust God to comfort me in times of extreme distress. If He does actually comfort people, it is in such a manner that it is impossible for me to know the exact reasoning or requirements for who He comforts.

That is my worldview. It does stem from what I consider to be solid evidence. Keep in mind, I hope God exists, that there is an afterlife, and that this God has a plan for us and our well being. I looked for evidence for those things; here are my conclusions.

1) It's possible a God exists
2) It's possible there is an afterlife
3) Based on the fact that innocent have suffered and died alone even when desperately seeking God's comfort for much of their time, I can conclude it is impossible to trust that God will help me or even comfort me at extreme times of distress in my life, let alone any time at all.
4) It's possible that even if God doesn't interfere in any of the horrible points in my life or in the lives of other's, that He's still going to make things "right" in the afterlife. (We'll have a nice afterlife where we see our purpose and live good lives and such)
5) It's possible that God doesn't exist, or that God does exist and doesn't care about us or doesn't have any afterlife for us or has a "bad" afterlife in store for us.

Debate any of these conclusions as you like. (3) is the only one I believe that can be debated. It is the one true piece of strong evidence this world gives me. Unfortunately it's a very sad piece of evidence.

I am left with my hope that a God does exist and that there is a deep purpose He created us for. It's possible after all, so I'm not being irrational for having hope. I am left acknowledging that based on my conclusions, I can not trust this God at all to be there to help or comfort me when I need Him. It is irrational to trust God in this respect.

[Woland]

I'm of the opinion that logic is derived from such systems, so it follows for me.
I'm still not quite sure either how you're assuming that logic necessitates some kind of meaning.

He's also (and fallaciously) assuming is that meaning requires some kind of "personal god". It's nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.

Individual human beings are complex agents of change who experience time in a linear fashion and have all sorts of needs and wants, some of them biological and common to nearly all humans, and some not.

It seems to me that this is more than enough to justify finding meaning in things - god or no god.

You can see why someone who thinks that "either god or no meaning" would want to cling to their personal-god-belief, though.

-Woland

[EduChris]

...Well, a 'wind-up doll' is inherently logical as it is determinable...

As a practical matter, we seldom attribute "logic" to inanimate, non-intelligent entities. We might say that the wind-up doll was logically designed, but of course the logic applies to the designer, not the doll.

...I don't know how logic is defined, and I would naturally assume the universe as we know it to be such an example...

If we were to remain consistent to ordinary, everyday custom, we might say that the universes possesses a certain logic, and we would attribute this logic to the designer rather than to the universe (obviously non-theists are uncomfortable with this, which is why they go against common usage in imputing "logic" to the universe itself).

...My objection is largely that I don't see how you have drawn your conclusion...I also still get the feeling that how we perceive logic is somewhat different, and that this issue is at the root of our problem...

I am primarily concerned with inductive logic, which is a system devised for the purpose of reaching sound conclusions in the absence of full and certain knowledge (i.e., the human condition). If there is no volitional agent, there is no purpose, no concluding, and (most likely) no knowledge of any kind. This sort of logic is "created" by humans, it is not "discovered" (as is the case, perhaps, with deductive logic).

...Is it not possible that the universe itself can, in some cases, create something capable of what we know as positing?...

This can certainly be adopted as an axiom, but it cannot be demonstrated or proven (even in principle).

...Does intelligence necessitate meaning?...

If there is no meaning, no information, it seems that intelligence becomes a vacuous concept.

...Is it not possible that logic is derived from the apparent deterministic nature that the universe itself is 'experiencing'?...

I suppose you can adopt that as a an axiom.

...Let's say that I somehow know that everything is determined(God told me or something)...

Or let's say you adopted it as an axiom and followed through with the implications.

...Would I have any reason to act as though I didn't? My philosophy would change, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to change how one acts based on whether or not they believe life to be determined...

I think that if large numbers of people could be convinced--really convinced, and not just giving lip service to the idea--that everything is predetermined, our world would be very different. But I don't think most people can ever really be convinced--intellectually and emotionally--that their behaviors and decisions are all predetermined.

...I, as an entity, am far too complicated to consider in a deterministic view...If I was to simply say: "You know what, there's no point in doing anything because whatever I do is determined." I would quite obviously die.
Why is it so hypocritical to function as a human being while believing that there is actually nothing about your decisions that is not practically causal?...

My concern is not to limit your axioms, but rather to level the playing field. Non-theists like to say that they have fewer axioms than theists, but on closer examination this turns out to be false. If you wish to avoid the "God" axiom, then you are almost forced (by the apparently deterministic nature of conglomerations of particles) to abandon any chance for volition and agency--but volition and agency seem to be an inescapable fact of life for most people. So even if the theist and the non-theist were to have the same number of axioms, the theistic set is more consistent with our actual, lived human experience.

I'm willing to refine my definition of God if necessary, but for starters I will say that God is the ultimate, absolute, non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire cosmos. God might be more than that, but certainly not less.

...I would not accept such an entity as a 'God', but I would accept that it can logically be assumed to exist(Whether it does is another matter.). Others would consider it 'God'; some of my deistic friends, for example...

For deism you have to add "intelligence and purpose" to the above definition; and for theism you add yet another element: "ongoing concern." The previously mentioned "bare-bones" or minimalist definition of God is, I suppose, my way of emptying the term "God" of all kinds of silly baggage that many non-theists here (but not you, I hope) seem so insistent on dredging up all of the time (remember ZZyzx?).

I don't think believing that something which makes no philosophical difference can be called a 'God' is constructive. Your definition above would fall into this category as it could potentially be any number of things...If that's all God is, then assuming our analysis of existence is appropriate, God exists...I don't think that's at all explanatory, though...

Again, some people are so conditioned to reject the notion of "God" that they can never get around to giving the concept serious thought. By emptying the term of unnecessary baggage, the door is opened up to seriously consider all possibilities (instead of just automatically succumbing to the propaganda from, say, the so-called "New Atheists"). But I agree that the only sort of God that makes a real difference in our lives is one who is creative, intelligent, purposeful, and concerned with humans.

...what is intelligence?...You appear to have the belief that intelligence is something more than physical, as many Theists do. I don't think that such a belief is warranted given the evident physical nature of the brain and the demonstrable connection of thought with the brain...If we consider that intelligence is emergent, is it not plausible that it would arise from non-intelligence?...

You can adopt that as an axiom (i.e., that intelligence can arise from strictly non-intelligent sources). But you can't demonstrate any such thing, even in principle.

...how is it that you are defining intelligence?...Isn't intelligence a potential property of a large collection of atoms organised in the correct manner with appropriate energies?...As for intelligence, I believe it to merely be a property of a certain system of interactions...

You can adopt that as an axiom, but I doubt you'll ever be able to demonstrate it.

"Creative, purposeful volition and imagination" is a start. Maybe you can help me refine this as necessary?

Before I try, can you show that this is actually applicable to anything within the universe?...

It is certainly applicable in the sense that it corresponds to most people's self-understanding.

...My philosophy is such that I can make practical use of many things which benefit me physically or otherwise...I deem that operating as if I were a free agent to be most beneficial to me as I have been societally and genetically conditioned to operate appropriately in this manner...

Certainly you can do whatever you like, as long as you're accounting for what you do with a full set of acknowledged (as opposed to unacknowledged) assumptions.

...I'm of the opinion that logic is derived from such systems, so it follows for me...I'm still not quite sure either how you're assuming that logic necessitates some kind of meaning.

In logic there is a strong concern to evaluate arguments. If there were no meaning, there could be no meaningful evaluation, and thus no logic.

[Jester]

Looks like I'm very behind on answering. I'll start plugging away.

Which worldview is supported by evidence.

All of 'em.

Standards regarding what constitutes valid evidence are as varied as there are humans, and all the turtles if they weighed in on the matter.

I can definitely see this view. My position, however, is "none of 'em".
A worldview includes our first premises, which can't be evidenced. This would lead me to the idea that we must actually select our worldviews by standards other than evidence.

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?

It's not so much that I think I have a word view superior to religious belief, but that it fails to answer any serious questions I have.

For me it is the relative uselessness with which religious belief solves my problems that precludes my particular participation in that program. God might care and all, but all His care doesn't pay the analytical bills.

Whether through poor PR, or through the dooficity I have with some sadness come to accept will remain with me the rest of my born days, religious appeals have struck me intuitively as magical, wishful thinking. Instinct may not always be correct, but I'm not gonna forget it just may be correct from time to time.

That I've found so many theists who I consider so intelligent laughs at the conviction I have that religious beliefs are sociopsychological relics. This I admit. That particular problem doesn't dispel my deeply held conviction that religious belief is better explained through human understanding, not godly. And here we'll just say 'm', in case there was a grammar violation there back that mighta got folks upset.

When I want to know what cures me, I seek a doctor.
When I want to place a bet on a game, I seek a bookie.
When I want to dream of fantastical lands in far off places where good and evil engage in epic battle, you've got five minutes to show the female breast, or an explosion, or I'm changing the channel.

Science may never solve our philosophical questions.

But it sure helps out where it can on a bunch of others.

As far as this goes, I certainly can't argue with a person who claims to be disinterested in religion. I believe that we all feel acutely that there is something wrong with us which needs fixing, but I don't see how I can argue that.
As to your perspective, this does create a problem for me. As follows:
The point of the OP could be reworded as "say you've convinced me that there isn't sufficient reason to believe in theism, what should I believe instead, and why?"
The answer here seems to be "Oh, everything I believe isn't any better. I just personally don't like theism."
I have no problem with you stating your opinions. In fact, I rather like the idea. But I don't see this as anything approaching an argument against theism, or for anything else. In which case, I don't see that it can - even if I completely agreed - change a single thing about what I think.