In the last post ("Atheism: Worldview or Objective Point of View") I promised 1) to show why I believe that all people have a worldview, and 2) to show why I believe that all worldviews are based on primary assumptions that are not ultimately subject to evidence or reason.
Why do I believe that all people have a worldview? Simply put: all people view the world in some way. We can think of a worldview as the "lens" through which we "see" the world. Initially we are given this lens by our family, friends, language, and culture. Eventually education plays a part in shaping our worldview. For some, religion will have an influence on the lens through which the world is seen. All of these (family, friends, language, culture, education, and so on...) form our initial worldview. However, as we enter into adulthood, our worldview is shaped further by our everyday experience and by the beliefs about the world that we acquire along the way.
Of course, it goes without saying that not everyone's worldview is going to be the same. Worldviews will be as different as the languages and cultures that people inherit and/or embrace. Nonetheless, everyone will view the world in some way, and the way that each individual views the world will be dependent upon the beliefs they have inherited and/or embraced. This brings us to the primary assumptions that worldviews are based upon.
I stated that I would show why I believe that all worldviews are based on primary assumptions that are not ultimately subject to evidence or reason. I must say that I regret using the phrase "not ultimately subject to evidence or reason." I regret this because it may be misleading. Nonetheless, let me try to explain what I meant in using that phrase.
I believe that all worldviews are based on primary assumptions concerning the world. Another way to say this would be "all worldviews are based on primary beliefs." For example, compare one primary assumption of the theist and the atheist. The theist assumes that God does exist. The atheist assumes that God does not exist (It should be clarified that the atheist' primary assumption is not the negative assertion "God does not exist," but some positive assertion similar to "ultimate reality is exclusively physical"). Both are primary assumptions that shape the way each views the world. This is the case even if the theist and the atheist acquired their respective beliefs as the result of evidence and reason. In other words, the belief may have occurred as the result of a period of seeking. During this period of seeking, evidence and reason is employed until a conclusion is reached (i.e. either God does or does not exist). Nonetheless, at some point the belief moves from conclusion to primary assumption.
The individual looks at the universe, all of the relevant scientific evidence, all of the relevant philosophical reasoning, and concludes that there must be a God. Or, the individual looks at the universe, all of the relevant scientific evidence, all of the relevant philosophical reasoning, and concludes that ultimate reality is exclusively physical (i.e. there is no God, there is no spiritual reality). Either way, the conclusion becomes part of that individual's worldview. Once they come to believe one way or the other, that conclusion becomes a primary assumption (or belief) through which they see the world.
Notice that I assume that two individuals can look at the same evidence and reasons, and yet come to contradictory conclusions. Let's assume that the two individuals in question have the same cognitive abilities (assuming further that they both have highly competent cognitive abilities). There is no guarantee when it comes to belief that these two individuals will come to the same conclusion. We see this everyday. Some highly competent physicists are theists, and some are atheists (Freeman Dyson-theist, Steven Weinberg-atheist). Some highly competent biologists are atheists, and some are theists (J. Craig Venter-atheist, Martin Nowak-theist). What are we to make of this? Are they missing some crucial part of the evidence? Are they failing to reason critically in some area?
The fact is that not all "scientific" conclusions are...well conclusive. There are only two places where anything close to "certainty" can be found, mathematics and logic. How do we know this? Ask anyone, anywhere who understands the following: "2+2", and they will all answer "4." In basic mathematics the answers are certain.
Offer to anyone, anywhere the following syllogism:
All humans are mortal
Chuck Norris is human
Therefore, Chuck Norris is mortal
Anyone who understands the premises will "see" that the conclusion is inferred ( of course if we exchange "Chuck Norris" for "Walker Texas Ranger" we might have a question as to the conclusion...). In other words, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Notice that this will be the case for anyone in anyplace and from any culture. In other words, certainty comes hand in hand with universal agreement. If it is certain, then everyone will agree, no matter where they come from or what language they speak, or what religion they adhere to, etc. Certainty will be accompanied by universal agreement. Or better, certain knowledge is not a primary assumption of one's worldview. In other words, I do not believe what I know.
Now...how is it that two scientists can have the same information and yet reach two different conclusions? It seems to be either the evidence is not conclusive in such a way as to receive universal agreement, or the conclusion is not concerned with science. What do I mean by, "the conclusion is not concerned with science?" Once a person moves from scientific claims to claims about God, she has moved from science to metaphysics. In other words she is no longer speaking about science, but about belief.
So why do I say that worldviews are based on primary assumptions that are not ultimately subject to evidence and reason? Because primary assumptions are primary. They are primary beliefs which shape the way we "see" and act in the world. We treat these beliefs as if they are certain, even if we know they are not (because we know we simply believe them). Why? I am not sure. Maybe humans have an innate desire to function off of certainty. We have to make judgements and choices. If we waited until we were certain about any and every choice we encountered, we would never choose. We must see the world in a "certain" way. The human creature (or human animal if you like...) must make sense of the world. We seem to have an innate tendency to make sense of the world in such a way that we can function. No one is exempt from this tendency, every one of us sees the world in some way.
Of course our worldviews can change. This is usually after a process of examination and searching. It usually takes time and effort to undo deeply entrenched beliefs, but it happens. Primary assumptions are basic beliefs about the world, which inform the way we perceive and function in the world. Primary assumptions are not ultimately subject to evidence and reason as long as they function as basic or primary beliefs.
Again, this is not to say that our primary assumptions cannot change. Further, this is not to say that primary assumptions cannot change as a result of evidence or reason. However, if we find that a primary assumption is changing, then it is evident that at some point our primary assumption (say, belief in God) ceased functioning as a basic belief that informs our understanding of the world. Maybe the way we have been "seeing" the world is no longer meeting its purpose of allowing us to perceive and function in the world in a way that is fulfilling. When this happens we begin to question whichever basic belief no longer works. Nonetheless, as long as the primary assumption functions appropriately, it is not subject to either evidence or reason. In fact, it informs the "lens" through which we reason and perceive evidence!
So in conclusion, everyone has a worldview and everyone's worldview is based on "certain" primary assumptions that are not ultimately subject to evidence or reason. This brings us back to the question at hand, "Is atheism a worldview, or an objective point of view?" In the next post I will offer my answer to this question and then try to address some ethical concerns that I believe are implicated in my understanding of worldviews.
No comments:
Post a Comment