Criteria for Evaluating Worldviews

[seer]

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.

Yes, but Newton's laws generally turned out to be incorrect. So let me ask you - is our knowledge that a rock falls to the ground when let go a "justified" understanding of reality? See I'm try to find out what you mean by justified.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but Newton's laws generally turned out to be incorrect. So let me ask you - is our knowledge that a rock falls to the ground when let go a "justified" understanding of reality? See I'm try to find out what you mean by justified.

No, Newton laws generally did not turn out to be incorrect. They turned out to have limited application to the nature of our physical existence at certain scales known at the time Newton developed his laws. In other words, like our present theories and hypotheses, it was replaced by theories and hypotheses with greater explanatory power. Our present theories and hypotheses will likely be modified, changed and replaced in the future as Newton's were. this is how science works. Surprise!!!!!

[seer]

No, Newton laws generally did not turn out to be incorrect. They turned out to have limited application to the nature of our physical existence at certain scales known at the time Newton developed his laws. In other words, like our present theories and hypotheses, it was replaced by theories and hypotheses with greater explanatory power. Our present theories and hypotheses will likely be modified, changed and replaced in the future as Newton's were. this is how science works. Surprise!!!!!

Go haunt someboby else...

[shunyadragon]

Go haunt someboby else...

No, your too much fun.

[seer]

No, your too much fun.

Listen Shuny, adults are trying to have a conversation here!

[shunyadragon]

Listen Shuny, adults are trying to have a conversation here!

It would be wonderful if you would realize it!!!!!!

[seer]

It would be wonderful if you would realize it!!!!!!

Shuny,the children's table is in the other room - go sit with your sister...

[shunyadragon]

Shuny,the children's table is in the other room - go sit with your sister...

Seer,the children's table is in the other room - go sit with your sister...[

[shunyadragon]

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.

Good point!

In history knowledge of our physical existence is progressive and built on previous knowledge. It began by simple observations as to which stones made the best tools, and trial and error methods on how to build bigger and bigger temples and tombs. Engineering in early civilization inspired the development of math in Greece. Newton used our prior knowledge of the behavior of physical knowledge, the math of the Greeks to develop his theories. In the late 1800's our growing knowledge of the behavior and speed of light opened the way for Einstein to develop his theories that would apply to the world of physics at the smallest and the largest scale. since than the knowledge of our physical existence continues to build on the foundation of previous theories and hypotheses. The Laws that Newton developed still apply very well on the scale of the world he lived in. The previous knowledge going back to the Neolithic was not necessarily wrong, but limited to the application of the world they lived in.

The criteria for world views at different levels human society and culture is based on the need of the time. The bottom line is the criteria of ancient and past cultures are inadequate for today's world.

[ZackMartin]

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?

Doesn't this project threaten to be circular?

People generally don't start from a truly neutral position, of having no worldview, then seek to evaluate the available worldviews to decide which one to adopt. I'm not even sure such a "truly neutral position" is even possible.

The criteria you use to evaluate belief systems, are at least partially based on the worldview you already have. That is the circularity in this exercise.

Of course, people do change worldviews. But is that because they evaluated their existing worldview, against some set of worldview-neutral criteria, and found it wanting?

I think changes in worldview are primarily driven by emotional and social considerations. That's not to say that intellectual and rational factors are never relevant - surely they are - but I don't think they take centre stage.

[ZackMartin]

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).

If you can't comprehend an idea, does that mean it is incomprehensible to everyone? Or just incomprehensible to you? If an idea is alien to your culture, it might well seem incomprehensible, but to someone from the same culture it would likely seem much more comprehensible.

I see Christians often criticise Hinduism and Buddhism on the grounds that their doctrines are incomprehensible. But, to someone raised in those religions, I doubt those doctrines would seem as incomprehensible. Incomprehensibility depends on who is doing the comprehending.

And Christians have many beliefs which have been attacked as incomprehensible. The Trinity is the most obvious doctrine attacked as incomprehensible, but there are others also. Surely, just because these people cannot comprehend Christian doctrines, doesn't in itself prove those doctrines are wrong. But likewise, if a Christian cannot comprehend Hindu or Buddhist doctrines, that is no proof that those doctrines are wrong either.

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.

The problem with contradictions, is that apparent contradictions can have proposed solutions. Just as atheists have long lists of Biblical contradictions, to which Christians have answers, then also this contradiction - which I take it is a reference to Buddhism - has its proposed solutions. One Buddhist teacher once explained it to me as follows "First one must desire to cease desiring every desire save that very desire itself. That desire, having been fulfilled, will naturally evaporate." As he put it, "want to cease desire" isn't technically accurate, but it is a good simplification for beginners; the real idea is "want to cease desire every desire other than this one".

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.

Again a very slippery criteria, which different people will apply to reach completely opposite results.

[MaxVel]

If you can't comprehend an idea, does that mean it is incomprehensible to everyone? Or just incomprehensible to you? If an idea is alien to your culture, it might well seem incomprehensible, but to someone from the same culture it would likely seem much more comprehensible.

I see Christians often criticise Hinduism and Buddhism on the grounds that their doctrines are incomprehensible. But, to someone raised in those religions, I doubt those doctrines would seem as incomprehensible. Incomprehensibility depends on who is doing the comprehending.

What I'm pointing at is that some worldviews in and of themselves, if true, make comprehension impossible. An example might be Alex Rosenberg's strict reductionist physicalism, which says that there is no such things as beliefs, and that there is no such thing as linguistic meaning. If that's true, then how can we know it to be true? How can he communicate that to me?

And Christians have many beliefs which have been attacked as incomprehensible. The Trinity is the most obvious doctrine attacked as incomprehensible, but there are others also. Surely, just because these people cannot comprehend Christian doctrines, doesn't in itself prove those doctrines are wrong. But likewise, if a Christian cannot comprehend Hindu or Buddhist doctrines, that is no proof that those doctrines are wrong either.

The problem with contradictions, is that apparent contradictions can have proposed solutions. Just as atheists have long lists of Biblical contradictions, to which Christians have answers, then also this contradiction - which I take it is a reference to Buddhism - has its proposed solutions. One Buddhist teacher once explained it to me as follows "First one must desire to cease desiring every desire save that very desire itself. That desire, having been fulfilled, will naturally evaporate." As he put it, "want to cease desire" isn't technically accurate, but it is a good simplification for beginners; the real idea is "want to cease desire every desire other than this one".

Sure, there are apparent contradictions which really aren't contradictions once one has studied them in detail. That's not what I'm talking about. But some worldviews do seem to have unresolvable contradictions at their core, and IMHO that rules them out.

Again a very slippery criteria, which different people will apply to reach completely opposite results.

I don't think it is as completely subjective as that. At the end of the day we all make our own decisions about what worldview we hold, so of course there's some degree of subjectivity. And if there was one set, clear, agreed criteria for objectively determining the best worldview, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and we'd pretty much all share the same worldview.

[shunyadragon]

Doesn't this project threaten to be circular?

People generally don't start from a truly neutral position, of having no worldview, then seek to evaluate the available worldviews to decide which one to adopt. I'm not even sure such a "truly neutral position" is even possible.

The criteria you use to evaluate belief systems, are at least partially based on the worldview you already have. That is the circularity in this exercise.

Of course, people do change worldviews. But is that because they evaluated their existing worldview, against some set of worldview-neutral criteria, and found it wanting?

I think changes in worldview are primarily driven by emotional and social considerations. That's not to say that intellectual and rational factors are never relevant - surely they are - but I don't think they take centre stage.

I do not believe that anyone suggested a truly 'neutral criteria.' Actually by far most people simply are anchored in the world view they were raised in in their family, peer group and culture. That would qualify as emotional and social I guess.

[magellan004]

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?

If it accords with God's will.

Magellan

[ZackMartin]

If it accords with God's will.

That criteria is very hard to operationalize. How do you know what God's will is? You will think it is one thing, someone else will think it is another.