I believe it's a good practice to base one's worldview, to the extent humanly possible, only on verifiable facts. Not because we think we are in possession of all the useful facts that will ever be discovered, but because we already have adequate scientific information to build a useful and humane worldview. Only after new discoveries have been fully vetted by many competing teams of scientists is it prudent to add new information to our fundamental assumptions about reality.
“I prefer Science over God but I’m hanging on to my astrology until science disproves it”
is not a scientifically viable position.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.A thought provoking post, I tend to agree for the most part. We can not exclude the arts and ephemeral things, astrology is a fun thing to read about but I don't base my decisions on it. Some do and their lives work out just fine. When looking at the big picture of humanity science has to come firs, sadly we seem to devolving here in America.
silverotter11
Level 9
Oct 22, 2018
1
Scientific discoveries are theories first. some people are labeled crazy until it is proven, some never get proven
coralisthree
Level 8
Oct 22, 2018
1
@Matias @Cutiebeauty @powder @WilliamFleming @stinkeye_a
When I blurt out an idea, I don't want to muddy it beyond recognition with countless caveats. I'm just trying to open a door to conversation. I figure the fine tuning can be done in the comment section. So I'll address some of those caveats/tunings here.
When I say a worldview should be based on nothing but science, I don't mean to suggest that it should contain nothing but science. I'm not promoting fanatical scientism. Of course we need philosophy, art, etc. The point of my post is that if we build a worldview that depends, for its integrity, on philosophies, practices, schemes, that have no known scientific underpinnings at any level, no matter how far back in the causal chain we reach... we are walking on thin ice, and we don't have to.
I spent my working life in art-related fields. My worldview makes plenty of room for philosophy, art, mythos, etc. But I understand and interpret those elements from a scientific perspective only. I do not see them as governed or influenced by supernatural or "mysterious" forces.
Humans have absolutely (in my worldview, which is always open to being updated by new information) nothing which did not come, either directly or indirectly, from the processes of evolution. If we have art, we can thank evolution. If we have philosophy, we can thank evolution. If we have delusions, we can thank evolution. There is no other source (that I can currently see) that contributed to our nature.
The fact that we experience a need for meaning, awe and wonder... is a result of evolutionary forces; nothing else.
In that hypothetical moment when we are in possession of all of the facts about human nature, we will indeed, I am convinced, find that dignity, rights, and laws, fiction though they may be, have evolutionary explanations. I would go even further to claim that those explanations are already coming into view.
skado
Level 9
Oct 22, 2018
2
My world view consists of abject bewilderment. That’s because as I see it, science provides only superficial answers.
Maybe we need two world views: one based on science, that helps us survive in our daily physical existence, and another based on a keen sense of awe and wonder, where new ideas are pounced upon with greed regardless of whether they arise from science, metaphysics, mysticism, philosophy or art.
The latter is a subjective world view and should not contain firm beliefs at all. It is a world view of personal experiences.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Oct 22, 2018
1
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here at all. I’m just saying that, while a worldview based on science does not exclude a recognition of experiential phenomena, we shouldn’t use that experiential material to try to explain the objective world. Or... that, if we do, we can’t really claim any useful distinction between our worldview and a worldview that depends on a belief in a literal god.
@skado I think “world view” has come to mean a personal philosophy about what we believe is true about nature. I suppose a person’s religious or metaphysical opinions should not be considered part of their world view in that those opinions are based on intuition and might just be speculation.I agree that those opinions ought not be presented as facts about nature.
A religious person probably wouldn’t talk much about his world view. It’d be his heavenly view or something like that.
I’ve about decided there’s never going to be an in-depth explanation of the objective world. Explanations are subjective stuff. To truly make sense out of reality we need to find out what we ourselves are, and we need to understand deep conscious awareness. Studying the brain is not going to give in-depth answers IMO.
Do you think it’s possible for us humans to have an in-depth understanding of reality?
@WilliamFleming
To me, worldview is the "map" from the map/territory dichotomy. Worldview is whatever mental representation we construct as our map of reality. All of reality. That includes objective and subjective, because both of those are part of reality.
When I Google "worldview" the majority of results are from Christian sites.
If by "in-depth" you mean complete and perfect, no, I don't think that will ever happen, and I don't think we need it. But I do think there is a qualitative difference between a worldview based mostly on accurate information and one based mostly on inaccurate information. And I think there is also a big difference between a worldview that is internally consistent and one that isn't.
We don't need to know everything, but we do need an operating system that helps us function well in our limited sphere of activity. If we each base that system on our individual feelings then we will forever be at war with everyone who feels differently. What we need, for a peaceful and co-operative society, is a common reference point. When nations were small and relatively isolated, a common religion could serve that purpose. Now that communication and transportation have global scope, the only thing I can think of that we all have in common is objective reality itself. If we have a relatively accurate understanding of that reality we have a common language again. And it can't hurt, even on the individual level, to be in sync with the reality we live in.
@skado I can see that for maximum efficiency and social harmony we should think only about statements and concepts that have been vetted by science.i see however at least a couple of drawbacks to that idea.
Science has to start somewhere. If NO ONE ever thought about unorthodox things, things not proven by the scientific method, then science would never advance. Intuitive ideas spring up somehow from the subconscious mind and they just might bear valuable fruit if nourished. Of course one shouldn’t believe those intuitive ideas 100% until they have been verified. On the other hand I think it permissible for my world view to have a variety of concepts, each with its own level of confidence. When communicating those concepts to others it is important to say the level of confidence that you have, and why you have that level.
I don’t know if anything is known with absolute certainty except for simple identities, and those things are superficial, having to do with semantics or definitions. My world view should absolutely contain the body of scientific knowledge, but that knowledge is in no way a clear-cut unit. A lot of so-called scientific studies are little more than an attempt by someone to snag grant money, or it is someone’s way of getting tenure. Individuals have to evaluate and use discrimination before accepting those studies 100%. So there’ll always be individual and social inconsistencies and conflict.
We might agree that objective reality as defined by science is sort of true and is good enough to be used for common reference, but IMO that objective reality is known only superficially. Maybe for practical purposes that’s good enough, but some of us crave something more. We feel a deep sense of awe and wonder—we want to be engulfed—to subjectively experience a bit of ultimate reality.
That kind of awareness lends the keenest of motivation to survive and live well. It’s always been the tribes and societies with a religious impulse that survived and prevailed.The societies with the highest level of metaphysical awareness should also have the highest level of love and compassion, and that alone gives them an advantage.
@WilliamFleming
Yes. I agree with all of this. I don’t find honoring individual experience to be outside of scientific viability, philosophically speaking. Science does not deny that humans have meaningful experiences that may not directly correspond to known objective phenomena. I’m 100% in favor of living a rich experiential life.
A sad world with only science...
Cutiebeauty
Level 9
Oct 22, 2018
2
That would be an impossible world.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.