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?

[bernee51]

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.

Taken as whole perhaps, but when broken down into its constituent parts, elements may be evidenced.

For example, if you accept the reality of the physiosphe as evidenced by 'toe on rock', that element is supported. Similarly evidence may be accepted for the biosphere. If this is the case, it is only in those elementss in the noosphere that are open to debate.

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.

And that would be an equivocation when appying the religious understanding of the word (Hebrews 11.1 for example)

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.

If ideas and beliefs are mental constructs, are not too the differences?

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.

The atoms and molecules are the same, the dependence upon and inte-relatedness with the biosphere are the same, root consciousness is the same. The only thing that seems to differ are those mental cosntructs which go to make up the sense of individuality.

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?

Oops - meant to say ascetic not aesthete.

Nonetheless, I'm not quite clear on you last point.

[bernee51]

...I fail to understand how "I do not believe in god" brings with it incoherent assumptions whereas  "I believe in god" does not...

Non-theism posits that there is no adequate warrant for believing theism to be true. So the non-theist is faced with the reality that she is either meaningless stardust, or else she is something more.

Oh look, a false dichotomy. Imagine a christian apologist falling into logical error, who would have thought?

I can only speak for myself here but would extrapolate to the majority of sentient beings...I consider myself in terms of the universe as a whole 'meaningless stardust', yet at the same time something more. An integral part of an unbroken line of evolution that extends back (at last count) 13.7 billion years. Not only that, I am conscious of evolution, I am evolution become aware of itself.

But since meaningless stardust is really in no position to claim that logic and reason are any more likely to lead to truth than anything else, this option is hardly ever chosen.

So what does lead to 'truth' and how would you recognise it?

Most non-theists do believe that they are something more than meaningless stardust--they assume this on faith. However, there is no non-circular scientific evidence to suggest that we are anything more than meaningless stardust. So the non-theist must either take it on faith that science will one day demonstrate conclusively either that she is meaningless stardust, or that science will one day demonstrate how she might be something more.

Conclusions based on a logical fallacy will always be suspect.

I think the remainder of you post can be safely and sensibly ignored until you do somethign about your fallacious premises.

Now suppose science were someday able to demonstrate conclusively that we are nothing but meaningless stardust. This amounts to incoherence because in this case meaningless stardust will have reasoned itself into a position which vacates the reasoning process by which its conclusion was reached.

So to avoid this incoherence, the non-theist must take on faith that she is something more than meaningless stardust--she must take it on faith that her powers of logic and reason have some sort of validity. Furthermore, she must take on faith that science may one day provide some supporting evidence for her ineradicable belief that she is something more than meaningless stardust--and she must also believe that it is more likely than not that this evidence will not point to Deity (because to think otherwise would be to admit that theism is a warranted belief after all).

But if our reason and logic are validated by scientific evidence as interpreted by reason and logic (apart from any deity) this will simply entail the circularity of reason and logic validating itself.

So non-theism is either self-referentially incoherent, or else it is hopelessly circular. Therefore, theism remains the only viable option, and as such it is a warranted belief.

[EduChris]

...I think the remainder of you post can be safely and sensibly ignored until you do somethign about your fallacious premises...

I see nothing in your response that demonstrates my premises to be "fallacious." Simply labeling them as so, without demonstration, is very likely itself a fallacy of some sort or another.

[bernee51]

...I think the remainder of you post can be safely and sensibly ignored until you do somethign about your fallacious premises...

I see nothing in your response that demonstrates my premises to be "fallacious." Simply labeling them as so, without demonstration, is very likely itself a fallacy of some sort or another.

Your second sentance was a false dichotomy...everything else you wrote was based on that fallacy.

[EduChris]

...I think the remainder of you post can be safely and sensibly ignored until you do somethign about your fallacious premises...

I see nothing in your response that demonstrates my premises to be "fallacious." Simply labeling them as so, without demonstration, is very likely itself a fallacy of some sort or another.

Your second sentance was a false dichotomy...everything else you wrote was based on that fallacy.

And since you have not shown any false dichotomy (but rather have simply asserted such without demonstration) I can do nothing more than repeat my request that you demonstrate any false dichotomy.

[bernee51]

...I think the remainder of you post can be safely and sensibly ignored until you do somethign about your fallacious premises...

I see nothing in your response that demonstrates my premises to be "fallacious." Simply labeling them as so, without demonstration, is very likely itself a fallacy of some sort or another.

Your second sentance was a false dichotomy...everything else you wrote was based on that fallacy.

And since you have not shown any false dichotomy (but rather have simply asserted such without demonstration) I can do nothing more than repeat my request that you demonstrate any false dichotomy.

You must habe missed this bit...I can only speak for myself here but would extrapolate to the majority of sentient beings...I consider myself in terms of the universe as a whole 'meaningless stardust', yet at the same time something more. An integral part of an unbroken line of evolution that extends back (at last count) 13.7 billion years. Not only that, I am conscious of evolution, I am evolution become aware of itself.

I will also add...I am also, as Teilhard so eloquently put it, a spiritual being having a human experience. But stardust nontheless.

[LiamOS]

Just to clear a few things up:

Non-theism posits that there is no adequate warrant for believing theism to be true. So the non-theist is faced with the reality that she is either meaningless stardust, or else she is something more.

This is not a false dichotomy. It is logically equivalent to 'A or not A'.

The greatest error in EduChris post is the following:

But since meaningless stardust is really in no position to claim that logic and reason are any more likely to lead to truth than anything else, this option is hardly ever chosen.

The first error is to claim that concluding that our existence is meaningless renders the conclusion that logic cannot be reasoned to be useful.
I, being one of those supposed few who deem existence as apparently meaningless, do not claim that logic can be proven. I use it as it has been proven to my satisfaction within certain parameters, and I endeavour to use it only in such circumstances.
As such, EduChris' claim that my position reduces to absurdity is incorrect, as it assumes that I claim to have an objective base for the use of logic.

If I can turn the tables here, I'd like to ask how the assumption that the universe is not meaningless allows one to objectively validate logic to a degree that will not reduce to the same absurdity.

Most non-theists do believe that they are something more than meaningless stardust--they assume this on faith.

There is no support offered for this generalisation.

Now suppose science were someday able to demonstrate conclusively that we are nothing but meaningless stardust. This amounts to incoherence because in this case meaningless stardust will have reasoned itself into a position which vacates the reasoning process by which its conclusion was reached.

This is only the case if you're pedantic enough to call on the problem of induction.
Also, I'd question the validity of the concept of 'meaning' when applied to the universe as an entity. Can you define meaning and show that it can be applied to the universe?


Without clearing up those problems I believe exist in his argument, I cannot take it as valid.

[100%atheist]

Just to clear a few things up:

Non-theism posits that there is no adequate warrant for believing theism to be true. So the non-theist is faced with the reality that she is either meaningless stardust, or else she is something more.

This is not a false dichotomy. It is logically equivalent to 'A or not A'.
.....
Also, I'd question the validity of the concept of 'meaning' when applied to the universe as an entity. Can you define meaning and show that it can be applied to the universe?

Actually, if "meaningless stardust" and "something more" have singular specific meaning in the presented context, then this is a false dichotomy. If not, these terms have yet to be defined by the author.

[100%atheist]

...I think the remainder of you post can be safely and sensibly ignored until you do somethign about your fallacious premises...

I see nothing in your response that demonstrates my premises to be "fallacious." Simply labeling them as so, without demonstration, is very likely itself a fallacy of some sort or another.

Your second sentance was a false dichotomy...everything else you wrote was based on that fallacy.

And since you have not shown any false dichotomy (but rather have simply asserted such without demonstration) I can do nothing more than repeat my request that you demonstrate any false dichotomy.

You must habe missed this bit...I can only speak for myself here but would extrapolate to the majority of sentient beings...I consider myself in terms of the universe as a whole 'meaningless stardust', yet at the same time something more. An integral part of an unbroken line of evolution that extends back (at last count) 13.7 billion years. Not only that, I am conscious of evolution, I am evolution become aware of itself.

I will also add...I am also, as Teilhard so eloquently put it, a spiritual being having a human experience. But stardust nontheless.

AkiThePirate might be correct, but only if "something more" includes "meaningless stardust". It will be interesting to see how EduChrist will resolve this ambiguity.

[LiamOS]

Actually, if "meaningless stardust" and "something more" have singular specific meaning in the presented context, then this is a false dichotomy. If not, these terms have yet to be defined by the author.

But 'something more' is an extremely general statement. I think that in context, it can be taken as 'anything other than meaningless', as EduChris appears to have a tendency to view meaning as good, explaining his use of 'something more'. Also, meaninglessness does rather encompass a variety of possibilities too.

AkiThePirate might be correct, but only if "something more" includes "meaningless stardust". It will be interesting to see how EduChrist will resolve this ambiguity.

Why would one have to include the other?

Let's say that you have to pick a real number.
If I tell you that it has to be either greater than or equal to 0, or strictly less than zero, I am correct. This is not a false dichotomy as it accounts for all possibly outcomes, and neither set of outcomes intersects the other.