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?

[100%atheist]

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.

I would rather set it in a slightly different way.
How about this?

"Let's say that you have to pick a [strike]real[/strike] number.
If I tell you that it has to be either greater than or equal to 0, or strictly less than zero, I am [strike]correct[/strike] using a false dichotomy."

A plausible demonstration of this is to suggest a complex number.

I think that EduChris is in a very similar situation by suggesting a non-theist has two options, whereas there might be completely orthogonal options. My take on this would be "Meaningless is irrelevant to my functioning just right and enjoying it." And this is not an ignorant viewpoint because it is to be demonstrated yet that a person does need to be conscious about some meaning of his life.

[LiamOS]

I would rather set it in a slightly different way.
How about this?

"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 using a false dichotomy."

A plausible demonstration of this is to suggest a complex number.

Good job, you know your number sets. That wasn't the point.

The point that EduChris isn't giving us a false dichotomy.
It's been stated multiple times that he has, but nobody has shown how it's actually a false dichotomy.

I think that EduChris is in a very similar situation by suggesting a non-theist has two options, whereas there might be completely orthogonal options. My take on this would be "Meaningless is irrelevant to my functioning just right and enjoying it." And this is not an ignorant viewpoint because it is to be demonstrated yet that a person does need to be conscious about some meaning of his life.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, could you elaborate on this?

[Question Everything]

My take on this would be "Meaningless is irrelevant to my functioning just right and enjoying it." And this is not an ignorant viewpoint because it is to be demonstrated yet that a person does need to be conscious about some meaning of his life.

My take on this is to find meaning of life by learning as much as we can about the universe using science, then applying this knowledge to make life better for everyone. At the same time, have an ethical system that is based on righting wrongs people do to each other from harm that they caused. (For something to be considered morally wrong there would have to be harm done to somebody without their consent.) We don't need a deity to do this.

I challenge any theist to come up with a better worldview that actually works and is supported by hard evidence. Until someone does, I don't want to hear any more about atheists thinking we are nothing but "meaningless stardust", and how we have no moral base, and how atheism means that there is no meaning to life.

[100%atheist]

The point that EduChris isn't giving us a false dichotomy.
It's been stated multiple times that he has, but nobody has shown how it's actually a false dichotomy.

An example of a false dichotomy: "you are with us or you are against us"
EduCrhist: you have to either be a meaningless dust or something else.

If by "something else" EduChrist meant something comparable to "meaningless dust" then this is a false dichotomy because there might be a whole zoo of possibilities which are incomparable (like complex and real numbers) to meaningless dust. And this is why so many of us want to know what did EduChrist mean by those invented terms. It is because it can very well be a false dichotomy, subject to proper definitions.

[100%atheist]

My take on this is to find meaning of life by learning as much as we can about the universe using science, then applying this knowledge to make life better for everyone. At the same time, have an ethical system that is based on righting wrongs people do to each other from harm that they caused. (For something to be considered morally wrong there would have to be harm done to somebody without their consent.) We don't need a deity to do this.

I challenge any theist to come up with a better worldview that actually works and is supported by hard evidence. Until someone does, I don't want to hear any more about atheists thinking we are nothing but "meaningless stardust", and how we have no moral base, and how atheism means that there is no meaning to life.

Let me through in this provocative post.

Well, what if I say that you need a deity for your inspiration and your motivation to pursue the knowledge and the goals that you described. And this might be true even if you don't realize it.

[EduChris]

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'.

Thank you, Aki, you are so right. If "A" or "Not A" is a false dichotomy, then we're all going to have a lot of trouble with any logical argument.

Bernee51, will you now retract your claim and apologize for your snide comments about "Christian apologists"?

...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...

My claim is that 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.

But beyond that, you have misunderstood my point here, which is that we cannot employ logic to invalidate logic--at least not without falling into self-referential incoherence. This is in fact why most non-theists choose to believe that we humans are "something more" than mere automatons.

...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...

You do not fall into circularity because you do not claim that logic and reason can be validated by logic and reason. Logic and reason can only be validated on grounds other than logic and reason if we want to avoid circularity. However, this gets back to the main point of this thread, which is that whatever worldview we adopt, we cannot logically or empirically prove that our worldview is "right" or "correct"; rather, at the most fundamental level we must rely on subjective evalutation.

...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...

You are putting words in my mouth here. By making the move to subjectivity you avoid the problems of incoherence and circularity. However, you also lose the ability to criticize theism as being necessarily inferior to non-theism (not that you have tried to do so--I am just pointing this out as a logical result of your admission that reason and logic cannot validate themselves in any worldview).

...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...

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.

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...

It appears to me that both you and Bernee51 do in fact believe yourselves to be something more than meaningless startdust operating strictly according to the laws of physics as understood today. If I am right about this, then that should count as evidence; but if I'm wrong, then please clarify your respective positions.

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.

Not sure I understand your point here. I'm not making the claim that logic and reason do or do not represent "objective reality," whatever that is. Instead, I claim that it is logically absurd to employ logic to invalidate logic. If logic is invalid, how can it "logically" invalidate anything?

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?...

Please state how and why you feel this statement is relevant to this argument? To me it is entirely disconnected from anything I have argued.

[Question Everything]

My take on this is to find meaning of life by learning as much as we can about the universe using science, then applying this knowledge to make life better for everyone. At the same time, have an ethical system that is based on righting wrongs people do to each other from harm that they caused. (For something to be considered morally wrong there would have to be harm done to somebody without their consent.) We don't need a deity to do this.

I challenge any theist to come up with a better worldview that actually works and is supported by hard evidence. Until someone does, I don't want to hear any more about atheists thinking we are nothing but "meaningless stardust", and how we have no moral base, and how atheism means that there is no meaning to life.

Let me through in this provocative post.

Well, what if I say that you need a deity for your inspiration and your motivation to pursue the knowledge and the goals that you described. And this might be true even if you don't realize it.

I would then ask for supporting evidence that this came from a deity. There is strong supporting evidence for it coming from evolution by natural selection. In fact, it is the very reason why humans survived and thrived.

[Question Everything]

There is strong supporting evidence for it coming from evolution by natural selection. In fact, it is the very reason why humans survived and thrived.

Sorry, I forgot to give the source for this. Here it is:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evo ... i=scholart

[Filthy Tugboat]

...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.

You might have to clarify "meaningless stardust" for me. When posting what "meaningless stardust" actually means(lol?) can you show me what the "something more" is in relation to the "meaningless stardust"?

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.

Feel free to add the response to this to the definition of "meaningless stardust". Why is "meaningless stardust" in no position to claim that logic and reason are more likely to lead to truth than anything else?

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.

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).

I'll need clarification before I respond to this.

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.

Reason and logic is not validated at all, it is just the best method we know to achieve what we want.

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.

Even if this was an accurate conclusion, you would need to analyze theism before concluding that it is a more viable option. I gather that you have done that but if you are looking to prove your case we have to see this analysis.

[Grumpy]

EduChris

Non-theism posits that there is no adequate warrant for believing theism to be true.

Yep, full stop, that is ALL non-theism means. End of discussion.

So the non-theist is faced with the reality that she is either meaningless stardust, or else she is something more.

Here you inject the question "Is there an objective meaning to my existence", a different subject, one all non-theists do not agree on(though I suspect most would answer no). But that is a philosophy. Where, in the statement "Non-theism posits that there is no adequate warrant for believing theism to be true." do you find any precepts of a philosophy, or any truth claims or morals. Where is the philosophy in that statement? Where is the meaning outside of non-acceptence of a theist concept.

In the search for answers(if there are any)to philosophical questions non-theism is only a very small part of the total, indicating only the subset of all possible world views(the OP)that a person does not accept. I'm quite sure there is a subset with which I agree on every question but that one(Unitarians come close, but still too mystic). What we need is a Church of the Universe, where we contemplate in awe something truly worthy of such contemplation(the Deists had this view and concidered it god).

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

Actually, most non-theists don't think stardust is meaningless. Nor do most other things lack meaning. They may not have OBJECTIVE meaning, but such a thing has never existed. And faith is a much misused word. I do not have faith the sun will rise tommorrow(it's an appearance, I know), but I can be pretty darn certain it will occur(I have the evidence of numerous occurances and no failures). Faith is belief without evidence, in "things unseen" and cannot be thrown about thoughtlessly if you want to be taken seriously.

Grumpy