Criteria for Evaluating Worldviews

[siliconwafer]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you on this board have any criteria that you use to discern whether a worldview or belief system is true?

[shunyadragon]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you on this board have any criteria that you use to discern whether a worldview or belief system is true?

I have outlined my assumptions and criteria and debated it in the past, and it was not well received. I am not sure if this would entirely be considered criteria, but much of it is.

All people have basic assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic assumptions and criteria for my beliefs are as follows.

The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.

The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.

The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective. and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.

The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. this is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.

I believe this 'Source' some call God(s) exists. I believe in Revelation as the continuous evolving, and changing human knowledge of God that never ends, and it does not result in the transmission of absolute knowledge and doctrine of the nature of God. Revelation comes through the Messiah, and through the human mind through communion with God. Religious beliefs reflect the culture and times of the Revelation believed. Creation and Revelation are continuous processes and intimately related. Religious beliefs are the human view of the Divine, not Divine knowledge of absolutes.

[pancreasman]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you on this board have any criteria that you use to discern whether a worldview or belief system is true?

I try not to make final decisions about which philosophical system is 'true'. I've read lots of good arguments for and against most that convince me (for the moment at least) that I can commit myself completely to none. I think there is wisdom to be gained in most major world views and I think that any system has weaknesses that can be exploited by people of poor character.

That said, I think a 'worldview' is more likely to be useful if it:

1. Has a rich intellectual history

2. Has a track record of producing people of great character

3. Values humility

4. Values the freedom of all people to seek their potential

5. Values all people regardless of race, creed, gender, caste or sexuality

6. Has a rich tradition of art associated with it. For me poetry, music and visual art valid (and essential) ways of expressing and exploring spirituality.

7. Makes no ludicrous claims about the physical universe which can be empirically discounted

8. Extolls the virtues of love, peace and freedom

9. Can laugh at itself

10. Is joyous and generous

That's just off the top of my head and I'm sure many will be able to say what's wrong with all of them but you did ask for my personal criteria. There they are.

[shunyadragon]

I try not to make final decisions about which philosophical system is 'true'. I've read lots of good arguments for and against most that convince me (for the moment at least) that I can commit myself completely to none. I think there is wisdom to be gained in most major world views and I think that any system has weaknesses that can be exploited by people of poor character.

That said, I think a 'worldview' is more likely to be useful if it:

1. Has a rich intellectual history

2. Has a track record of producing people of great character

3. Values humility

4. Values the freedom of all people to seek their potential

5. Values all people regardless of race, creed, gender, caste or sexuality

6. Has a rich tradition of art associated with it. For me poetry, music and visual art valid (and essential) ways of expressing and exploring spirituality.

7. Makes no ludicrous claims about the physical universe which can be empirically discounted

8. Extolls the virtues of love, peace and freedom

9. Can laugh at itself

10. Is joyous and generous

That's just off the top of my head and I'm sure many will be able to say what's wrong with all of them but you did ask for my personal criteria. There they are.

The Baha'i Faith fits well for most of these, but there is considerable subjective judgement in many of these, which leaves the question quit open. Number 7 is the Catch 22 most atheists and agnostics would exclude Theist religions and some non-Theist religions including the Baha'i Faith.

'God Loves Laughter' by William Sears is a fun read.

Unitarian Universalists I also like on most of the above, and my closest other belief, Buddhism does well.

[MaxVel]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you on this board have any criteria that you use to discern whether a worldview or belief system is true?

Off the top of my head, some criteria -

1) Comprehensibility

A worldview has to be comprehensible. If it undercuts the possibility of communication, or comprehension then it can't be evaluated for truth (since we can't know what it's actual content is).

Glen Miller:

Now the first criteria that comes up here for me is comprehensibility. I have got to be able to understand what they are saying--at least enough of it to evaluate their claims. If they are using words SO COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY than I have ever heard or can 'stretch to' (see above on extensible language), then I cannot pick that one. This is NOT a judgment--I don't 'have anything' to judge. If one of them comes up to me and says something like "We believe that the beyond is a big invisible peacock egg with whiskers, but we also believe that none of the preceding words have any meaning at all" I cannot actually come up with a content to that--it is self-stultifying.

2) Coherence

A worldview needs to be internally coherent. If it has major contradictions then it is doubtful that it is true. If it asks me to do two contradictory things (such as 'cease desire' and 'want to cease desire') then it obviously has problems.



3) Explanatory power and scope

How much of what we observe does the worldview explain, and how well does it explain it? The more the better, and the more clearly and comprehensively it explains what we observe (including what we observe internally), the better.

[Seasanctuary]

The main thing I look for is whether the worldview could plausibly be chalked up to culture.

[seer]

The main thing I look for is whether the worldview could plausibly be chalked up to culture.

As an agnostic wouldn't you have to conclude that all worldviews are grounded in culture?

[Seasanctuary]

As an agnostic wouldn't you have to conclude that all worldviews are grounded in culture?

I was going to say "no" but then I thought "sort of."

As an agnostic, I don't believe any of us has strongly justified beliefs about the nature of fundamental reality, so worldviews which deal in fundamental reality are, to that extent, cultural viewpoints or indistinguishable from cultural viewpoints.

For example, I believe the public evidence allows for (at least) naturalism and deism. Whether a person goes for naturalism or deism is then a matter of psychology and culture. Even if one happens to be true, those who get it right are just lucky.

[Chrawnus]

I tend to be careful when it comes to adopting criteria for evaluating worldviews. Not that I think one shouldn't use them when judging between different worldviews, but there's always a risk that what one claims is a "criteria" is in reality an excuse one uses to sweep valid options under the rug.

That being said, I'd agree with MaxVel that a worldview has to be (atleast) coherent, comprehensible, and have explanatory power and scope.

[seer]

I was going to say "no" but then I thought "sort of."

As an agnostic, I don't believe any of us has strongly justified beliefs about the nature of fundamental reality, so worldviews which deal in fundamental reality are, to that extent, cultural viewpoints or indistinguishable from cultural viewpoints.

Well let's say for the sake of of argument that God given revelation was a fact - wouldn't that be a justified belief? One that would have the correct understanding of reality?

For example, I believe the public evidence allows for (at least) naturalism and deism. Whether a person goes for naturalism or deism is then a matter of psychology and culture. Even if one happens to be true, those who get it right are just lucky.

Ok...

[Seasanctuary]

Well let's say for the sake of of argument that God given revelation was a fact - wouldn't that be a justified belief? One that would have the correct understanding of reality?

It might be a warranted belief (in Plantinga's terms), because those who hold that belief do turn out to hold it because it's something true that was communicated to them. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that it would be a justified belief. Their turns-out-correct belief could be held for no better reasons than someone else who holds a turns-out-false belief.

An example might help. Suppose digital manipulation of photographs becomes so good that fakes are indistinguishable from real photos. A private detective gives a man a photo of his wife cheating on him, so he believes his wife is cheating on him. This is an unjustified belief either way. But if the photo happens to be legit, then his belief is warranted because the image he sees does happen to be a reliable representation of what his wife was doing.

[seer]

It might be a warranted belief (in Plantinga's terms), because those who hold that belief do turn out to hold it because it's something true that was communicated to them. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that it would be a justified belief. Their turns-out-correct belief could be held for no better reasons than someone else who holds a turns-out-false belief.

An example might help. Suppose digital manipulation of photographs becomes so good that fakes are indistinguishable from real photos. A private detective gives a man a photo of his wife cheating on him, so he believes his wife is cheating on him. This is an unjustified belief either way. But if the photo happens to be legit, then his belief is warranted because the image he sees does happen to be a reliable representation of what his wife was doing.

This is correct, but Plantinga does make the case that the Christian belief is warranted. I'm not sure what the difference between warranted and justified would be. And since you don't believe that any of us have "justified beliefs" can we dismiss your above argument?

[Seasanctuary]

And since you don't believe that any of us have "justified beliefs" can we dismiss your above argument?

"justified beliefs about the nature of fundamental reality"

[seer]

"justified beliefs about the nature of fundamental reality"

Isn't "fundamental reality" the ground from which everything else springs? It seems to me that if we didn't have a justified understanding of reality that that would color or undermine all our conclusions or arguments - correct?

[Seasanctuary]

Isn't "fundamental reality" the ground from which everything else springs? It seems to me that if we didn't have a justified understanding of reality that that would color or undermine all our conclusions or arguments - correct?

We didn't need to understand quantum physics and relativity to have Newton's laws. We didn't need Newton's laws to know a rock drops if we let it go. Knowledge seems to work best from the human level outward, rather than trying to guess the absolute fundamentals and work back to where we're at.