Atheism isn't a worldview, but

[Epimethean]

Fred doesn't want you to find out what he's getting at, so he never gets at it.

[Shell B]

Folks that answer yes to that are the fundies, the mythic worldview that held ascendency for a few thousand years, so it's got deep roots. All the family values, chosen people, respect for law and order and tradition conservative stuff that drives you crazy springs from this world view, as does the us vs. them, in group/out group dynamic. All behaviors that proved to, uh, confer a survival advantage, etc. They got us a long way and they are still alive and kicking vigorously. But the were eclipsed on the big board by you know who:

That doesn't even approach the question that was asked. What is moral truth? Is it true because the Bible said so or because mommy said so? You may skirt around the topic of morality, but you don't even come close to describing what makes it true. Sure, it's an answer, but to an entirely different question.

Yup, the rational/scientific you know so well. Child of the enlightenment, age of reason, classical age, industrial age, mechanistic, all that. Homecourt for your team, which is why you defend it so strongly. No, we defend it because it's the truth. Well, of course. And it is the truth, except when it isn't. at least when it is. You see, it depends on the context. Which is where these guys come in.

Okay, here we touch on the truth. Rationale and science are the methods by which to come by the truth. It might be true that a person believes in god and believes that god holds the key to our morals, but that does not make it true. In fact, the only evidence of it is that very belief, which is kind of like using a conclusion as evidence. Science and rationale are ways to pick things apart and find the core of it, not just the conclusion. Why are we averse to such things? Why, when someone is never exposed to the Christian god or belief system, can he still have morals that are all about not hurting other people? These questions can be answered by studying human behavior, body and mind. So, we defend it because it is the best way to find the truth, if the truth is what a person actually seeks.

These are the big three in the culture wars, and as can be expected, it being war, they hate each other, and each thinks they hold the exclusive answer to the "what is truth" question.

I don't hate people for having different cultures. It isn't a fucking war. A war is an armed conflict. I would not shoot a person for thinking their morals are right and mine are wrong. Using terminology like "war" incites drama around a topic that doesn't need it. People instigate this shit by demanding answers about morality and using inflammatory language such as yours.

you can't say an atheist is always this or a fundie is always that and all the stuff you guys love to argue about.

You're arguing it to, buddy. Don't forget that. At any rate, calling a fundie something is typically different than calling an atheist something, given that fundies have a myriad of core beliefs that they either have or they are not fundies.

All three views are part of development, personally and historically, but since each thinks the other two don't get it, they are at culture war and each one seeking to get ascendency is what it's all about. The particular issues are just the different battle fronts.

How do you ever finish a conversation talking like that? You are drawing lines in the sand that aren't necessarily there.

[downbeatplumb]

Beats me what hes getting at. He agreed with everything I posted and came to the conclusion I was wrong.

[Fred]

Why didnt you just start a thread asking everyone what their worldview was?

I suppose I could have but I thought it might save time to give a bit of background because it's common to mistake the worldview and think it's a person in total, which it isn't.

I really dont get the point of attacking what Atheism is when everyone has defined it a billion times already.

I'm not attacking atheism or anything else. This isn't about atheism; it's about worldviews, and it's not about attacking those, either. It's about the wider context that the atheist/theist debate is springing from.

---

According to his post on Lunchbox's thread, Fred believes that there are only 3 worldviews.

No, Fred knows there are more than three. He was focusing on the three main players in the culture wars, and I'm pretty sure he mentioned that along the way.

Everyone's perspective and perception of the world is different.
They might have things in common with multitudes of other folks, but somewhere in there, there is something that is different.

Right. Snowflakes and all that. Worldviews are just windows people look out of from different parts of development. It's not a person and nobody is locked into whatever one they are looking out of.

Atheism isn't a worldview, but...

But what, Fred?

But worldviews inform our pov, and the view from each is different. Also, the three big ones on the stage right now, mythic, rational, and relativist, don't like each other at all, hence all the squabbling and talking past each other.

---

It's good to know that nobody else understands what he is getting at either. I can't find what his point is, even after the close examination of his first post.

Is he trying to establish that there are only 3 world views? Is he trying to say that atheists have to be rationalists?

No and no. Look, rhythm's brahmin bubble blowing aside, none of what I'm talking about is outside the box of developmental psych and sociology, Piaget and Gebser kind of stuff. Stages of development aren't hocus pocus; they've been studied extensively.

Mythics and rationalists are not compatable, btw. Opposite views.

Right. The rational level that springs up with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment was a reaction to the mythic,. and the relativist level was a reaction to the rational, kicked off with the romantics and that crowd.

All three are still in heavy rotation, with more fundies than rationalists than relativists, as would be expected because of the historical and developmental head start.

But the point is that you don't just dump the mythic when you move to rational, and you keep those when you go to relativist. They are all part of the family, but you know how families are, they bicker endlessly. You can be a firm rationalist and still use the mythic level when it suits you, just as a relativist can and a fundie can use the gifts of both of the others.

This is clearly seen underneath all the heated debate about the events of today's anniversary and the science builds planes and religion flies them into buildings tag.

[fr0d0]

But worldviews inform our pov, and the view from each is different. Also, the three big ones on the stage right now, mythic, rational, and relativist, don't like each other at all, hence all the squabbling and talking past each other.

Yeah I consider myself a rational. I hate those other guys. But my buddies in my camp give me most grief. We're all more rational than each other you see.

What was the question again??

[The Grand Nudger]

I hope I did blow that brahman bubble of yours. Maybe the next time someone asks you what fountain you draw this knowledge from you won't respond with "one word rishis".

[Fred]

Folks that answer yes to that are the fundies, the mythic worldview that held ascendency for a few thousand years, so it's got deep roots. All the family values, chosen people, respect for law and order and tradition conservative stuff that drives you crazy springs from this world view, as does the us vs. them, in group/out group dynamic. All behaviors that proved to, uh, confer a survival advantage, etc. They got us a long way and they are still alive and kicking vigorously. But the were eclipsed on the big board by you know who:

That doesn't even approach the question that was asked. What is moral truth?

Right. That's why I started a new thread.

Is it true because the Bible said so or because mommy said so?

Someone operating from the mythic pov would say absolutely, as I'm sure you have heard them do frequently.

You may skirt around the topic of morality, but you don't even come close to describing what makes it true.

I'm not skirting anything. I started a different thread to discuss worldviews.

Sure, it's an answer, but to an entirely different question.

Which is why I started a different thread.

Yup, the rational/scientific you know so well. Child of the enlightenment, age of reason, classical age, industrial age, mechanistic, all that. Homecourt for your team, which is why you defend it so strongly. No, we defend it because it's the truth. Well, of course. And it is the truth, except when it isn't. at least when it is. You see, it depends on the context. Which is where these guys come in.

Okay, here we touch on the truth. Rationale and science are the methods by which to come by the truth.

As defined by the rationalist pov. You no doubt have ample evidence of mythic folk disagreeing with you here. They have a different answer. You've no doubt shared the frustration often expressed regarding their inability to accept the simplest facts and logic and all that. It's true, because they aren't seeing it from your pov, but theirs. That is what this thread would be about if I had my way, exploring those reasons. They aren't hocus pocus.

It might be true that a person believes in god and believes that god holds the key to our morals, but that does not make it true.

To them it does, but to you it doesn't. That's why you yell at each other all the time. You don't hear each other because you may use the same words, but you aren't speaking the same language. Venus/Mars kind of shit.

In fact, the only evidence of it is that very belief, which is kind of like using a conclusion as evidence.

Precisely. That's exactly what it is.

and rationale are ways to pick things apart and find the core of it, not just the conclusion.

Precisely, the sequel. That's why it is such an incredible gift and why it was a reaction to the mythic faith answer.

are we averse to such things?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. That's the fascinating part.

Why, when someone is never exposed to the Christian god or belief system, can he still have morals that are all about not hurting other people?

Depend on who the other people are, and that's where worldviews become so important. For the mythic, no matter what particular flavor, the people you don't hurt are the others in your group. Those outside are fair game. The chosen people bit. It's not until the rational that the idea of extending that care (at least ideologically) to everyone regardless or group was put into play, which is why slavery gets abolished with the rise of the rational pov and not before.

These questions can be answered by studying human behavior, body and mind.

Right. I'm talking about what the folks who have studied it came up with when it comes to worldviews and development.

So, we defend it because it is the best way to find the truth, if the truth is what a person actually seeks.

Change "the" truth to "that" truth and yes. Mythics firmly believe you are simply not interested in "the" truth, which is why you have to go to all these scientific lengths to ignore the obvious. You know that drill, I'm sure. And your facts are absolutely useless as far as swaying them from this opinion, a fact I'm sure you are also familiar with.

I don't hate people for having different cultures. It isn't a fucking war. A war is an armed conflict.

I didn't invent the term, and it's not about different cultures. It's about different worldviews within a culture and the fact that distinctly don't like each other and why they are at war. They all want to be the dominant voice for the culture at large.

I would not shoot a person for thinking their morals are right and mine are wrong. Using terminology like "war" incites drama around a topic that doesn't need it. People instigate this shit by demanding answers about morality and using inflammatory language such as yours.

I haven't demanded any answers about morality and haven't used any inflammatory language, so whoever your kick is with, it isn't with me.

You're arguing it to, buddy. Don't forget that.

No, I'm arguing something else. I have no interest in the usual back and forth you guys deal in. I've never been a part of that, so it's not where I'm coming from.

At any rate, calling a fundie something is typically different than calling an atheist something, given that fundies have a myriad of core beliefs that they either have or they are not fundies.

Exactly. That's my whole point. You can and do have fundie atheists, rationalist atheists, relativist atheists , which is why atheism is not a worldview per se. Usually, though, when folks think of atheists, they think of the rationalist brand. That may not be right, but that's the price of the gnu atheist bit.

All three views are part of development, personally and historically, but since each thinks the other two don't get it, they are at culture war and each one seeking to get ascendency is what it's all about. The particular issues are just the different battle fronts.

How do you ever finish a conversation talking like that? You are drawing lines in the sand that aren't necessarily there.

Not sure what lines you mean, but again, it's not like I'm just pulling this out of the air. There really is a field called developmental psych and stuff like this is part of what they study.

[LunchBox]

According to his post on Lunchbox's thread, Fred believes that there are only 3 worldviews. If that were presented to me as fact, the fact would have to be that the only people left on earth were Fred, some unfortunate individual, and me. There is no other way I would ever believe it otherwise. Everyone's perspective and perception of the world is different. They might have things in common with multitudes of other folks, but somewhere in there, there is something that is different.

Atheism isn't a worldview, but...

But what, Fred?

I'm not sure how I have come to fit into this thread...mainly because I don't understand it. Fred...you may be "too deep" for me...I don't know. But reading the intro post, and the subsequent followups, I'm having trouble following all this. It's like opening a book, and the first line is a passage from a poem...the second line is an excerpt from a recipe for southwest meatloaf...the third sentence is a series of mathematical symbols...the fourth part is a picture of a cat with chewing gum stuck to its paw...etc., etc.

A little help over here?

[Fred]

I'm not sure how I have come to fit into this thread...mainly because I don't understand it. Fred...you may be "too deep" for me...I don't know. But reading the intro post, and the subsequent followups, I'm having trouble following all this.

Not to worry, LB. As you can see, you are not alone. As confused as everyone seems to be, I'm as confused to as why they are, so I don't know what part is hanging folks up. Regardless, once more can't hurt.

If you look at history, when did the rebellion against the church as sole authority take place? At the beginning of the age of reason. That's the mythic being overtaken by the rational. The particulars aside, the worldview is why it's called the modern age and why the mythic is seen as premodern. It's the development of the rational/scientific lens, if you will, that makes it different. And it took of like a rocket because of it, an acceleration unlike anything ever seen.

Of course, with that much momentum, things can go off course, and they did. So people screamed loud and long, starting with the romantics in the late 18th century on into the postmoderns.

Premodern, modern, postmodern. Three distinct historical periods, three distinct worldviews. But all of them are still here because they are levels of development and become part of the overall package.

We didn't cast off the lizard brain, right? It's like that. Levels are added, not replaced.

And the cool part is that the same sequence of development that took place historically takes place individually. They match up. That's the Piaget/Gebser thing I mentioned. One focused on individual development, the other of societal, but the stages they and those like them studied are the same, macro and micro.

I mentioned you because you just happened to hit all three worldviews in a row and it was synchronous.

Your knowing you couldn't be proven wrong was the mythic lens, the quantifying part was the rational, and the knowing about the limitations of the labels was the relativist.

I thought it was an excellent example of showing how we all use them at different times.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm still interested as to where we've gone off course, as that seems to be the common sentiment in every one of your threads thusfar. A statement like this would imply that you somehow know "the course".