How does one thing represent a million different things that have nothing to do with each other?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Worldview
- Thread starter Kfox
- Start date
My world view is how I think the world works.
I use it to try and make sense of what has happen and predict what will happen so I can be somewhat prepared for it when it does.
I suppose some of my world view is unique and some of it shared by others. It is generally easier to place your world view in a category of commonly understood world views so others get some idea of where your views are coming from. Much easier than getting into the details about your specific world view with everyone you meet.
I suspect everyone formulates some idea about how the world works even if they don't happen to call it a world view.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
How can you say they have nothing to do with each other when I have explained the exact thing that underlies all worldviews (being an aggregate of perspectives)?
The same way thousands of different bits can be a "vehicle," thousands of different parameters can be "climate," or thousands of unrelated events "history."
There are linguistically dedicated hierarchies of aggregation.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
In a sense, but I would phrase differently.
If a person had a single worldview “that covers every subject they could possibly address”, they would be a very one dimensional.
If this person could only manage to relate to any subject or situation through one fixed perspective then perhaps.
Bad fictional characters are sometimes portrayed like this. This requires being extremely single minded.
Say an over-the-top, fervent, over zealous, fundamentalists Christian who might view everything through their all encompassing perception of Christianity and was incapable of viewing anything other than through that perspective.
They could only be capable of viewing politics through how they might perceive that some passage in the bible might relate to the situation, and can only perceive of a “Christian culture”, —rather than an ethnic or national culture —
and can only interpret ethics through their (necessarily warped) interpretation of divine morality, and can only view science and technology through a lens of whether it comports with their perception of biblical narrative and consider anything that doesn’t as trickery of the devil or his minions, and only look upon a woman as subservient breeding stock, etc. etc…..people aren’t generally so single sighted.
The closer a person is to this one dimensional caricature they more easily and accurately they could be described as having a “Christian worldview”.
The more central to a persons identity and all encompassing a single point of view and it’s influence is to that person, the more easily it is to identify as a single particular worldview.
People for the most part have a far more varied set of influences, such that a persons unique worldview is made up of, and influenced, by a variety of different perspectives.
Say Christian where religion is concerned,
progressive ideology where politics is concerned, Hispanic “flavor” where culture is concerned, heterosexual where attraction to others is concerned, etc.
Any and all of these perspectives can have influence on, and be influenced by, some of the other perspectives.
If one of these perspectives tends to dominate and have increased influence on the other perspectives, the more apt a person is to consider that perspective as central to their identity and therefore more apt to describe their worldview as based on that perspective.
(See the caricature of the Christian above)
For most people they might describe a portion of their worldview (a particular perspective) when talking about or considering a subject.
Such that your Hispanic Christian progressive, in your example may, when speaking about politics incorporate their “progressive worldview” or to be more accurately stated — the “progressive portion of their worldview”— their “progressive perspective” when considering that subject.
Or their “Hispanic portion of their worldview” or their “Hispanic perspective” with cultural matters.
The “Christian portion of their worldview”, their “Christian perspective”, may well have a modicum of influence on either of the other perspectives, but if that were not an overriding portion when considering the subject of politics or culture it wouldn’t be considered as having come from that portion or prospective within their worldview.
The more central to ones identity a particular perspective is, the more likely that perspective is to being identified as their worldview.
The less singular a variety of perspectives are that are incorporated into ones worldview, the less likely a singular perspective is to describe their worldview.
I guess part of the confusion on my part is, worldview seems to always have a name; Christian worldview, Atheist worldview, etc. I will assume there are capitalist, socialist, democratic, cultural, worldview as well, but I’ve never heard them expressed that way, the only people I’ve ever heard use the term Worldview were religious people, and it is in the context of their religion, or no religion at all. So my question is, (I’ve been told because I don’t believe in God, that I have an atheist worldview) If I have an atheist worldview, and this worldview is an aggregate of all of my perspectives, why is it called an atheist worldview rather than a worldview named in the context of one of my other countless perspectives?
When you say how the world works, are you talking about planet Earth? The people who live around you? Or something else; please explain
Does your worldview have a name? (Christian worldview, Atheist worldview, etc.)
Would you say if you have a variety of perspectives incorporated in your worldview, that your worldview will not have a name?
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Why does a worldview need to have a name or fit into a category? While some aspects in a worldview can be shared, there are many divergences that make our worldviews unique to ourselves, imo
The way I've always heard them described (prior to this thread) they've always had a name. So you agree with me?
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Not really. I try to judge people on an individual basis. While there are some shared experiences people can have, what they do with that experience differs and is influenced by other factors they've experienced in life
I'm an atheist, yes, but my understanding of atheism is going to be vastly different than @Twilight Hue, for instance. He is much more of a staunch atheist than I, he is serious about the Buddhist path where I'm ignorant of it, and he is right leaning where as I am left leaning. While we both aren't convinced by the existence of gods as literal beings, all similarities end there
Each person has their own story and their own perspective on life that has been informed by their own life experiences. That is far more valuable than categorizing vast swathes of people based on one or two elements they have in common, imo
So you agree your worldview does not have a name?
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
I don’t put a “name” on my worldview.
There is no specific perspective which dominates my view.
As I said;
I don’t have a perspective that I consider to be “central to my identity”.
Many religious people consider their religion to be central to their identity.
Take for instance Speaker of the house Mike Johnson, who was relatively unknown when sworn into office.
Shortly thereafter in an interview said that the best way to learn how he feels about "any issue under the sun" is to read the Bible.
You will note that this is after being sworn into government office.
When asked what his position were on issues, presumably about politics, his reply was;….
"I am a Bible-believing Christian," Johnson said. "Someone asked me today in the media, they said, 'It's curious, people are curious: What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?' I said, 'Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That's my worldview.'"
New Speaker Mike Johnson says the way to learn how feels about any issue is to read the Bible: 'That's my worldview, that's what I believe'
Johnson's personal strong religious faith and ties to Christian-affiliated organizations are well-documented.
Thus making it plain that his clearly dominant, and therefore overriding perspective and self-identity is “a Bible-believing Christian”.
This is not uncommon.
Many devoutly religious people’s identity is wrapped up in their religion, often to the exclusion of other aspects of life.
These are the sort of people who tend to — as
Mike Johnson does — profess theirs to be a “Christian worldview”.
Many, if not most, of their other perspectives are heavily influenced if not dominated by their religious perspectives, which is why it becomes central to their identity.
So it’s not surprising that while having a conversation in the context of religion that a Christian that self professes a Christian worldview, would contrast it to an “atheist worldview” when talking to someone that they know to be an atheist, is it?
They then are comfortable taking what they perceive to be an atheist perspective and then assuming that is your worldview.
If you were having a discussion on a completely different unrelated subject which they don’t perceive as being influenced by their religion and are not aware or under the impression that you might hold a contrasting view concerning that subject, they might well have never brought it up.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
To me? Not really. It's simply my world view. Anything beyond that requires either familiarity with me personally or blind assumption
How the physical world works, how we humans came to exist. How humans work i.e. how we think, feel, likely behavior.
I generally go with physicalist.
Physicalism - Wikipedia
Worldview isn't a formal belief or philosophy. It's an anthropological concept, not a religious one. Most people can't name or categorize their worldview.
Worldviews are holistic perceptions of life and reality associated with specific cultures. They're not political or religious viewpoints.
Thanks for your perspective and answering my questions; it is definitely different than what I've heard before.
Thanks for your perspective and answering my question. The way you've described it is definitely different than what I've heard from others.
Makes sense to me. Thanks for your perspective.I don’t put a “name” on my worldview.
There is no specific perspective which dominates my view.
As I said;
I don’t have a perspective that I consider to be “central to my identity”.
Many religious people consider their religion to be central to their identity.
Take for instance Speaker of the house Mike Johnson, who was relatively unknown when sworn into office.
Shortly thereafter in an interview said that the best way to learn how he feels about "any issue under the sun" is to read the Bible.
You will note that this is after being sworn into government office.
When asked what his position were on issues, presumably about politics, his reply was;….
"I am a Bible-believing Christian," Johnson said. "Someone asked me today in the media, they said, 'It's curious, people are curious: What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?' I said, 'Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That's my worldview.'"
New Speaker Mike Johnson says the way to learn how feels about any issue is to read the Bible: 'That's my worldview, that's what I believe'
Johnson's personal strong religious faith and ties to Christian-affiliated organizations are well-documented.www.businessinsider.com
Thus making it plain that his clearly dominant, and therefore overriding perspective and self-identity is “a Bible-believing Christian”.
This is not uncommon.
Many devoutly religious people’s identity is wrapped up in their religion, often to the exclusion of other aspects of life.
These are the sort of people who tend to — as
Mike Johnson does — profess theirs to be a “Christian worldview”.
Many, if not most, of their other perspectives are heavily influenced if not dominated by their religious perspectives, which is why it becomes central to their identity.
So it’s not surprising that while having a conversation in the context of religion that a Christian that self professes a Christian worldview, would contrast it to an “atheist worldview” when talking to someone that they know to be an atheist, is it?
They then are comfortable taking what they perceive to be an atheist perspective and then assuming that is your worldview.
If you were having a discussion on a completely different unrelated subject which they don’t perceive as being influenced by their religion and are not aware or under the impression that you might hold a contrasting view concerning that subject, they might well have never brought it up.