RandomGuy

What would you all consider the role that worldviews play into data interpetation? That is, what is the role that one's worldview plays in making sense out of any set of data?

This one issue that has had me thinking lately. Let me explain a little bit. Take any miracle from the Christian Bible, the Koran, or any other such "religous" book that contains extraordinary events. Which one we use actually use doesn't matter. Now lets like our atheist to be called 'A,' and our theist 'T.' Now lets choose a random event, which is extraordinary to the point where we lack the knowledge to sufficiently give it a natural explaination. In other words; a miracle. Lets say the actual event was a man who claimed to be "under the influence of the divine" said he was going to jump across a large lake through the air above it, and he did it (bare with me folks ). Now lets see how 'A' and 'T' would theoretically deal with the data. I would propose that both are capable of interpeting these events into their respective worldviews. 'T' would look at the miraculous event, and claim that its uniqueness is evidence of the power of his awesome omnipotent God that he believes in. Has he proven his case? Has 'T' been correct afterall?

I would propose that no, an evidential appeal like this did not prove his position to be the correct one, let alone even suggest it to be correct. I would propose that all 'T' did was interpet the extraordinary event into his partiular theist worldview. No matter how crazy the event-- both 'A' and 'T' are capable of doing this. 'A' would look at the event, and look for a natural explaination to explain what just happened. And even if one could not be found, 'A' could simply say that we don't poccess the neccessary scientific tools to uncover a explaination yet.

So if what I propose is true; what role does evidential appeals have in a debate such as these on a BBS over God's existence?

Or an even scarier thought; how could you ever test to know which worldview is correct if you aren't sure what role evidential appeals have? I suppose you would have to do it a priori? But how would one do this?


EDIT: stupid grammar mistakes...

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: RandomGuy ]</p>

David Gould

We can never prove something. All we have is evidence. The argument over worldviews ignores the fact that people change their worldviews.

Why do they do this? Evidence.

Thus, evidence does have a role - its role is in fact primary in conversion from theist to atheist.

The lack of evidence for god - there is none that I can see - lead me to question god's nature and then his very existence.

Now, imo a miracle of the sort you describe would likely convince me that there was something weird going on, especially if it was repeatable and testable against other things - for example, if it was a christian claiming to do it in god's name, could a jew do it or a muslim?

Vorkosigan

I would propose that all 'T' did was interpet the extraordinary event into his partiular theist worldview. No matter how crazy the event-- both 'A' and 'T' are capable of doing this. 'A' would look at the event, and look for a natural explaination to explain what just happened.

This formulation seems to assert that there is no possible test of the two worldviews (actually, they constitute hundreds of worldviews), or in fact, of any two worldviews. Do you honestly regard this as a realistic view of the world and our place in it? Could such a disconnect be possible among creatures evolved to fit this world?

Michael

RandomGuy

Huh? Can you prove this statement true? Or do you mean something else by this statement?

Two things.

First, if 'all we have is evidence' then where is your evidence to back the claim up that 'all we have is evidence'? You might recognize this line of argumentation is the same that plagued logical positivism. By its own standards it is self-refuting.

Second, I don't see how my argument ignores the fact that people change worldviews. If anything my arugment shows that people changed thier worldviews to fit a different interpetation of whatever evidence is meant within that different worldview. So it is actually quite easy to account for these things.

But people with different worldviews have different epistemologies. This means the criteria used in order to know anything (including what any evidence is, and what it means) is different, so they will never agree to what the evidence actually means when trying to use whatever evidence to "prove" thier worldview.

Same as above, as far as the relevance goes to the topic at hand.

Yes, it would be "wierd." As far as whether or not some other religous person could do it doesn't seem to matter. Not that this wouldn't be interesting, but rather that I fail to see how this relates to the question at hand. The example is merely there to show how two different people handle data and remain consistant with their respective worldviews. Nothing more, nothing less.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: RandomGuy ]</p>

RandomGuy

The number of worldviews doesn't matter. And there is a difference between proposing a problem that you see and proposing a solution to that problem. The formulation shows that the evidential appeals are futile to a degree. If this is true, then you would have to somehow test the worldviews a different way? Which way I don't know. I'm just looking at what seems to be a problem. I'm not providing an answer to it.

It would have to be shown it one way or the other. I've provided some reasons for looking at it this way, so I suppose it couldn't be too bad?

It means you would have to look at issues differently than pure evidential appeals.

RandomGuy

I just realized something!

I think I answered my own problem when I pointed out the different worldviews having different epistemologies, and hence the different criteria. I think that is what is the root of the area of difference.

I need to focus on that more before I would continue this. Let the thread die if you wish, or go ahead and respond to my past posts so you guys can look better.

j/k

Peace.

Kenny

Yes, I think you are on to something very important. There are no completely worldview grounds upon which to meet to evaluate differing worldviews, so doing so is something of a delicate matter. One way to evaluate worldviews is to step inside of them, see if they can be deconstructed on their own terms, ask what the implications of a particular worldview would be for its own knowability and truth value. I don't think that's the only way, but it makes for a powerful method in a lot of cases.

God Bless,
Kenny

Wyrdsmyth

Then how does one switch worldviews, if they're so totally incommensurable? If they have no common ground at all, how does one even make the transition?

I think we're all able to doubt and question our own worldviews, and imagine having different ones -- try on different hats, so to speak.

The way we evaluate evidence is indeed colored by our worldviews. But also, presumably, according to the theistic worldview, their view has its historical origins in evidence presented by a god, and that is why people believe in the first place. They didn't have to first assume god was real, in order to see the evidence for what it was. A voice coming out of the air, or from a burning bush, etc. kept talking to Abraham and performing all sorts of miraculous things. Jesus' followers could see him do miracles. Presumably, it is the evidence of these 'miracles' that founded the religion in the first place, and won over the doubters.

In your case of the flying man, who claims god is making him fly... that's a good one. I think more people are likely to doubt such a thing today than two or three thousand years ago. More people would consider it might be a hoax.

If someone with the skills of David Copperfield came on the scene, not as a 'professional magician' but as a self-proclaimed prophet and miracle worker, and said:

"By the divine power of my god, Zalkazzo the Highest, I am going to make the statue of Liberty disappear! It is through his power that I can do this, and I am doing it to prove that he exists! All who doubt the divine power are in league with evil powers! Deny Zalkazzo at not only risk to your life, but your afterlife as well. Afterwards, I will make the statue reappear, you may all stay for a short service as I baptise you into the One True Faith and expound Zalkazzo's various doctrines and creeds."*

Would you take him at his word? Or would you look for naturalistic explanations?

* The style and 'voice' this paragraph is written in is an homage to Jack Vance, a brilliant author of sf and fantasy, infamous for his colorful satires of religious beliefs -- or what might be called the eternal dance of human opportunism with human gullibility.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>