Worldview

[Kfox]

A worldview is not exactly "having opinions on various issues".
One can have opinions on various issues, and those opinions not be connected to any worldview.
Your worldview is however, made up of a culmination of ideas, views, opinions, philosophies, etc., all combined into one overall view.

Think of it like a person who is headed one direction.
The person is going that direction because he does not like colored people. He does not like too much sun. He want to have access to clean water.
His worldview is shaped by the various ideas, and views he has.

It would be more accurate to define a worldview as an accumulation of those opinions, ideas, views, etc.
Am I confusing you? I don't mean to. Sorry.

...and yes, ones worldview can determine one's opinions on various issues, as @Augustus said... Only after the worldview has been shaped.

I’m not confused, it’s just that based on how you’ve described it, a worldview is something I don’t have. You mentioned a worldview as a biased lens? All lenses distort reality to various degrees (the clearer the lens, the less distortion), and protects what’s behind it. I don’t want a lens to protect and distort my reality, I would rather experience what is real without a protective lens.

 

[Augustus]

I’m not confused, it’s just that based on how you’ve described it, a worldview is something I don’t have. You mentioned a worldview as a biased lens? All lenses distort reality to various degrees (the clearer the lens, the less distortion), and protects what’s behind it. I don’t want a lens to protect and distort my reality, I would rather experience what is real without a protective lens.

That’s not cognitively possible though.

The idea one does not have a worldview and can experience things free of bias is itself a distortion of reality, a form of protective lens that shields the beholder from the fact they are significantly a product of their environment rather than a self-made, independent rational actor.

 

[Augustus]

I'll see if any atheists want to defend their position before I respond.

I’m an atheist, and am more than happy to defend my position

 

[Debater Slayer]

What is a worldview? And is this something that only applies to religious people?

I see a worldview as the foundation for one's opinions and perspectives on different subjects, so it primarily consists of one's values, moral axioms, and reasoning methods, as well as the beliefs derived from those. Essentially, if opinions are the spectrum of colors resulting from refraction of light through a prism, the worldview is the prism itself.

No, it doesn't just apply to religious people. I believe that humans are an inherently biased species and that our heuristics and thought patterns are impossible to fully decouple from various biases, such as our upbringing, environment, emotional preferences, personal experiences, etc.

 

[Kfox]

That’s not cognitively possible though.

The idea one does not have a worldview and can experience things free of bias is itself a distortion of reality, a form of protective lens that shields the beholder from the fact they are significantly a product of their environment rather than a self-made, independent rational actor.

I never said I don’t have bias, yeah I believe (for example) it is wrong to take things that don’t belong to you; that is a bias resulting from the environment I grew up in. But that is not a protective lens, that is me looking at a clear picture free of distortion and garnering an opinion based on what I see/experience.

 

[Augustus]

I never said I don’t have bias, yeah I believe (for example) it is wrong to take things that don’t belong to you; that is a bias resulting from the environment I grew up in. But that is not a protective lens, that is me looking at a clear picture free of distortion and garnering an opinion based on what I see/experience.

Our brain evolved numerous protective functions as these are evolutionarily advantageous (functions such as cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, in group bias, etc.), these affect us all no matter how much we would like to think otherwise.

These combine with our experience and socialisation to make us unable to see the world free of distortion which is exacerbated by always dealing with incomplete information and having to fill in many gaps as best we can.

We can only ever be intermittently rational, and must accept this is the nature of our evolved cognition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'll see if any atheists want to defend their position before I respond.

Defend what specifically? Unbelief in gods? My worldview, which is described here and which can be called atheistic humanism, includes an empiricist's epistemology, which is skeptical, that is, nothing is to be believed without sufficient evidentiary support, which doesn't exist for gods.

Was there more you were looking for? Did you want me to defend humanism (my worldview) beyond what I described in that linked post, or perhaps something else?

 

[Kfox]

Our brain evolved numerous protective functions as these are evolutionarily advantageous (functions such as cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, in group bias, etc.), these affect us all no matter how much we would like to think otherwise.

These combine with our experience and socialisation to make us unable to see the world free of distortion which is exacerbated by always dealing with incomplete information and having to fill in many gaps as best we can.

We can only ever be intermittently rational, and must accept this is the nature of our evolved cognition.

How do you know everybody is guilty of this confirmation bias, that nobody is capable of seeing things as they are and drawing conclusions based on what they see?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I’m not confused, it’s just that based on how you’ve described it, a worldview is something I don’t have. You mentioned a worldview as a biased lens? All lenses distort reality to various degrees (the clearer the lens, the less distortion), and protects what’s behind it. I don’t want a lens to protect and distort my reality, I would rather experience what is real without a protective lens.

The notion that you see the world as it is, free from distortion or illusion, is a rather radical world view in itself.

 

[Kfox]

The notion that you see the world as it is, free from distortion or illusion, is a rather radical world view in itself.

No, that's my opinion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, that's my opinion.

It’s a curious one. You rely on your senses to perceive the world, and your mind to make sense of it, do you not? So if your opinion that you see the world as it is is correct, you presumably have a great deal of faith in your senses and your mind. That level of faith in the infallibility of your perceptions, I think constitutes a world view.

 

[Kfox]

It’s a curious one. You rely on your senses to perceive the world, and your mind to make sense of it, do you not?

Agreed.

So if your opinion that you see the world as it is is correct, you presumably have a great deal of faith in your senses and your mind. That level of faith in the infallibility of your perceptions, I think constitutes a world view.

I would say my belief that my senses are correct is based on reason and logic,; none of which constitutes a world view.

 

[Augustus]

How do you know everybody is guilty of this confirmation bias, that nobody is capable of seeing things as they are and drawing conclusions based on what they see?

Because we are all humans, and that is the way the human brain evolved.

There is ample scientific, philosophical, sociological, psychological, historic, anecdotal and literary evidence that supports humans limited rationality.

We are a collection of molecules that became sentient by chance, not a machine designed to experience and discern objective reality. We can only ever experience the tiny fraction of reality perceivable to our senses directly or indirectly.

What Makes you think you or any other human can transcend the severe limitations of human cognition?

Some folk can mitigate some of the limitations more successfully than others, but only in a limited manner.

Few things could be more irrational than believing humans can transcend these.

 

[Kfox]

Because we are all humans, and that is the way the human brain evolved.

There is ample scientific, philosophical, sociological, psychological, historic, anecdotal and literary evidence that supports humans limited rationality.

We are a collection of molecules that became sentient by chance, not a machine designed to experience and discern objective reality. We can only ever experience the tiny fraction of reality perceivable to our senses directly or indirectly.

What Makes you think you or any other human can transcend the severe limitations of human cognition?

Some folk can mitigate some of the limitations more successfully than others, but only in a limited manner.

Few things could be more irrational than believing humans can transcend these.

I disagree. I believe various people will experience the same thing as it is, but they will disagree on how they judge it. But just because they disagree in their way of judgment does not mean they are not seeing it for what it is

 

[Augustus]

I disagree. I believe various people will experience the same thing as it is, but they will disagree on how they judge it. But just because they disagree in their way of judgment does not mean they are not seeing it for what it is

The degree to which people can do that on any individual issue depends on the circumstances, what is absolutely beyond any doubt is that we cannot do that consistently throughout the multitude of diverse and complex experiences we have in our daily lives.

Our cognition is driven by narratives based on incomplete and often ambiguous information, these narratives are dependent on our worldviews and other factors, and how we interpret and contextualise the events we experience will always be biased and distorted to some degree based on this.

Whether you accept this fact or not is beside the point. The idea that people can transcend the limits of human cognition is just a comforting myth deriving from your worldview.

 

[Kfox]

The degree to which people can do that on any individual issue depends on the circumstances, what is absolutely beyond any doubt is that we cannot do that consistently throughout the multitude of diverse and complex experiences we have in our daily lives.

Our cognition is driven by narratives based on incomplete and often ambiguous information, these narratives are dependent on our worldviews and other factors, and how we interpret and contextualise the events we experience will always be biased and distorted to some degree based on this.

Whether you accept this fact or not is beside the point. The idea that people can transcend the limits of human cognition is just a comforting myth deriving from your worldview.

The ability to transcend the limits of human cognition is not necessary in order to experience things as they are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The ability to transcend the limits of human cognition is not necessary in order to experience things as they are.

Who says it is possible to "transcend the limits of human cognition"???

 

[Augustus]

The ability to transcend the limits of human cognition is not necessary in order to experience things as they are.

The cognitive sciences don't support your opinion unfortunately.

Do you experience squares A and B as the same colour? Our brain doesn't work the way you wish it did.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The cognitive sciences don't support your opinion unfortunately.

Do you experience squares A and B as the same colour? Our brain doesn't work the way you wish it did.

That is a really cool optical illusion!

 

[Augustus]

That is a really cool optical illusion!

It's amazing. They are so obviously not the same colour

First time I saw it I printed it out cos I had to check