What does world view look like at your house

[Quiver0f10]

I keep hearing the phrase world view and I am clueless what exactly it means. Do I even have one? Would I know if I did ? LOL How does one teach/learn world view?

 

Thanks!

[CookieMonster]

Everyone has a worldview. It's the point of view through which you see, interpret, and respond to the world around you.

 

If you've been hearing this a lot from Christian sources, like I have, it's because this is a new area of ministry focus for parachurch organizations.

 

Focus on the Family page with links to several of their articles about worldviews.

 

Answers in Genesis page with worldview discussion.

 

Biblicist view of Atheistic worldview.

 

From War of the Worldviews.

 

Article on developing a Biblical worldview in our children.

 

There are quite a few books out there on the subject that have been written recently.

[Quiver0f10]

Thanks!! Lots to read :)

[Guest]

To me your worldview is just that, how you view and interpret the world around you. Yes, you have one, everyone has one. It develops either consciously or subconsciously, based upon the themes/belief systems to which you are regularly exposed.

 

We are intentionally striving to develop a Christian worldview in our ds. We do this by relating things back to the Bible. What does God's Word have to say about marriage, money management, etc.

 

HTH!

[Plaid Dad]

Worldview is usually defined as the lens through which you see and interpret the world around you. You might call it your "philosophy of life," whether conscious or unconscious - a set of assumptions about the nature of reality. This article lists the following facets of worldview:

 

1. An ontology, a descriptive model of the world

2. An explanation of the world

3. A futurology, answering the question "where are we heading?"

4. Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?"

5. A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action.: "How should we attain our goals?"

6. An epistemology, or theory of knowledge. "What is true and false?"

7. An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building blocks," its origins and construction.

 

If you go here and scroll down toward the bottom, you'll see a bullet list of typical questions that can help define your worldview. This list is drawn from James Sire's The Universe Next Door which is a popular Christian (specifically evangelical Protestant) introduction to worldview.

 

It is quite possible not to be aware of the specifics of one's worldview - just because you have never thought about it - and it is also possible (in fact, common) to have a "mixed" and even incoherent worldview. But it is not possible not to have one at all.

[Quiver0f10]

Thanks again, I appreciate the links. I am going to read through them later when the kids are in bed.

[Diana in OR]

Thanks for posting about this, Jean. I came on to ask the very same question!!

 

Kind of as a sub-question to yours,(more of a rhetorical question, I guess): What exactly defines a "Christian" worldview, "Athiest" worldview, "Muslim" worldview, etc.?

 

It seems to me that it is rather subjective. A family friend commented to us the other day, rather matter of fact, that no one could be a [certain political party] and have a Christian worldview!?! I *know* Christians who belon to that political party, so I've been thinking about this ever since.

[Phred]

"World view" came into prominent use primarily because religionists needed to justify theirs. You'll notice that all the sources provided are Christian... even those explaining other's "world views". It's just another way to label and thus be able to more easily categorize other people. The world isn't black and white and someone who thinks one way about one thing might not think the same way about a whole range of other issues. As was mentioned in this thread... you can too be a <blank> and be a Christian.

 

So... what's the difference between a pro-life, anti-evolution, fundamentalist Christian and an anti-choice, anti-science, bible-beating religionist?

 

Your world view.

[Storm Bay]

"World view" came into prominent use primarily because religionists needed to justify theirs. You'll notice that all the sources provided are Christian... even those explaining other's "world views". It's just another way to label and thus be able to more easily categorize other people. The world isn't black and white and someone who thinks one way about one thing might not think the same way about a whole range of other issues. As was mentioned in this thread... you can too be a <blank> and be a Christian.

 

So... what's the difference between a pro-life, anti-evolution, fundamentalist Christian and an anti-choice, anti-science, bible-beating religionist?

 

Your world view.

 

Interesting, because I have some agnostic & atheist relatives that use this term, too. However, they don't live in the US, so perhaps it depends on where you live.

[Sharon in MD]

My son and I've been working through Summit Ministry's Understanding the Times world view curriculum....it is excellent. It compares and contrasts all the major world views that you are likely to run into every day....It explains extremely well how each of these views answers the questions of theology, philosophy, sociology, economics, biology, etc. Here is a link to their website. This is a late high school through early college level course....really really excellent.

 

And one that I just love is Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live....it is more of a historical approach to how we as Western Civilization got to where we are today....

 

Here is the link.....http://www.summit.org/curriculum/hs/

[Quiver0f10]

Thanks for the links :)

[Michelle T]

"World view" came into prominent use primarily because religionists needed to justify theirs. You'll notice that all the sources provided are Christian... even those explaining other's "world views". It's just another way to label and thus be able to more easily categorize other people. The world isn't black and white and someone who thinks one way about one thing might not think the same way about a whole range of other issues. As was mentioned in this thread... you can too be a <blank> and be a Christian.

 

So... what's the difference between a pro-life, anti-evolution, fundamentalist Christian and an anti-choice, anti-science, bible-beating religionist?

 

Your world view.

 

 

I never hear the term "world view" used outside a Christian perspective. I hate to say that the way I normally hear it used is that a Christian world view is right and normal, any other world view is wrong, bad, immoral. But maybe that's just my inlaws.

Michelle T

[Plaid Dad]

Just a side note, if you're interested: I mentioned James Sire's book The Universe Next Door. That book has gone through several editions; the current one is the 4th edition, published in 2004. It's worth seeking out the most recent edition because he's refined his ideas over time and added material as the culture has changed. He's also written another book called Naming the Elephant that is, effectively, a philosophical critique of the whole history and concept of worldview that ends in a more nuanced definition.

 

For me, the value of the concept lies in giving a framework for analyzing presuppositions - one's own and other people's. It's not a perfect analytical tool, but a useful one.

 

As an example, I recently had several people suggest that a particular homeschooling method was a good counterpart to LCC. It was a method I had been unimpressed with in the past, but as I trusted the people making the suggestion, I decided to dig deeper to see if I could see what they saw in it. I read materials about the other method very deliberately from a worldview perspective, comparing the method with the assumptions of the historical worldview that underlies classical education. (By the way, that worldview is only a specifically religious one if you add in the modifier "Christian" to "classical." Most of the assumptions are shared by Westerners, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.)

 

It was readily apparent to me, reading from that perspective, that the two methods were fundamentally incompatible, in that their underlying assumptions were not only different, but mutually exclusive. Many of those differences had a religious basis, but some did not. Some showed inconsistencies in the author's thought and places where he'd brought together ideas from different sources without noticing their incompatibility - which told me something about his own education. It was a very enlightening experience and allowed me to articulate why this particular method hadn't sat well with me in the first place.

 

I encourage people to think about education "worldviewishly," and not just in terms of conveying a particular religious worldview, as important as that may be to certain families. You've heard the phrase "ideas have consequences"; that holds true in education as much as anywhere else. Is there a match between your view of the world and the assumptions of the educational method you've chosen? If not, you're working at cross-purposes with yourself.

 

I had a conversation yesterday that drove this home to me. My neighbor teaches writing at a local college that caters to working adults. She is currently teaching a course on persuasive writing - rhetoric, essentially. She came to me to ask how to talk to one of her students about a paper the student had written. It was a critique of a feminist article from an evangelical Christian perspective. She was concerned that the student was unable to think outside of her Christian assumptions enough to support her arguments without reference to the Bible. During our discussion, my friend made a very insightful comment. She said, "I'm trying to get them to understand that there is no truth, it's all spin." I didn't say so, but I thought: "So you're trying to create sophists. Remind me not to send my dd to your school!" What I did say was, "Well, that's not going to fly with a Christian student. We believe in truth with a capital T. It's fine to expect her to argue her case using more than one source, but it's not fine to expect her to become a postmodern relativist to pass your course." That pulled her up short, I think!

 

So worldview is alive and well in education, although rarely is it as above board as my friend.

[chiguirre]

I never hear the term "world view" used outside a Christian perspective. I hate to say that the way I normally hear it used is that a Christian world view is right and normal, any other world view is wrong, bad, immoral. But maybe that's just my inlaws.

Michelle T

 

This has been my experience too. I'd never heard the term worldview until we started hsing and I've never seen anyone promote any worldview besides a Christian one. Personally, I feel that you don't need a curriculum to impart a worldview to your children, just talking to them about what they're learning and experiencing in day to day life should be enough to let them know where you stand. It's part of becoming an independent adult for them to take that and decide where they stand.

[CookieMonster]

Kind of as a sub-question to yours,(more of a rhetorical question, I guess): What exactly defines a "Christian" worldview, "Athiest" worldview, "Muslim" worldview, etc.?

 

It seems to me that it is rather subjective.

 

It is absolutely subjective, as far as how your worldview is categorized. In order for your relative to speak as they did, they have to impose their definition of "Christian worldview" on someone else.

 

But, examining worldviews, in the general sense, is a great tool for understanding where someone else is coming from. For example, Plaid Dad's conversation with his friend.

 

If ever you've said to someone, "Well, look at it through their eyes," chances are you were referring to the context and background beliefs that person sees the situation through.

 

A worldview doesn't have to be static either. As you change and grow, your worldview chages and grows with you.

 

So, yes, Christians have found it useful to label different groups of people has having a certain worldview because it helps us to understand why said people may act the way they do about certain topics and why they might respond to us in a certain way. It helps you understand the logic someone else has followed to reach their conclusions about life, politics, and other things.

 

HTH

[Liberty]

Worldview is definately not merely a religious term. I've heard it used numerous times over the years to describe the mechanism individuals employ to accept/reject/modify/interpret information in the world around them. Everyone has a worldview whether they know it or not.

 

For instance, here are only a few examples of how "worldviews" can affect our lives:

-Politics: if your worldview is that corporations' pursuits of profit is destroying the planet, which political party are you going to choose?

-The Environment: again, an environmentalists' worldview shapes how he/she interprets global weather changes whereas others may interpret the info differently

-Race: Is Al Sharpton's worldview different than Don Imus'? Probably

-Child-rearing: Do you believe children are born good and are made "bad" by society? Do you see evidence of this throughout history and everyday in the world and does it affect how you discipline your own children?, etc...

 

I once had a neighbor (an atheist, btw) whose worldview had been shaped by a father who believed that Jewish people were inferior and evil. Consequently, he wouldn't put his money in banks (owned by Jews), nor would he watch TV (Hollywood was run by Jews and everytime he had seen objectionable content on TV it was evidence to him that Jews were methodically trying to destroy his mind). He also believed that every war and bad event thoughout history could be traced to a Jewish root cause. Yes, his worldview was very warped and wrong, but it could not be changed (no matter how many arguments you got into with him).

 

All of us have belief systems concerning mankind and the planet. These belief systems are the "core" of you. Your "worldview" is the "window" through which this "core" looks at life outside itself.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

This is would explain why I have purchased so many things for schooling over the last 15 years that I haven't been able to bring myself to use. Sigh.

 

Understanding one's own world view can be an enlightening process. I think a study of history and ideas leads us to understand ourselves better, even if we aren't able to tuck ourselves neatly into a category. More and more I find that I am not who I once thought I was. I also find it extremely difficult to subscribe purely to one school of thought.

 

Anyway, world view at my house would look like discussion, even argument. It looks like me scrambling to my Bible to try to find the words to frame an answer to my child who asks why. It looks like me being honest when I can not find a definitive answer. It looks like me discussing the full implications of what I believe and admitting that I could be wrong because there are equally valid answers. It looks like a discussion of the pros and cons of each philosophical thought that strikes our curiosity. No world view curriculum here. I thought about it for a while, but realized it would be another one of those things I would end up reselling unused.

[Quiver0f10]

This has been my experience too. I'd never heard the term worldview until we started hsing and I've never seen anyone promote any worldview besides a Christian one. Personally, I feel that you don't need a curriculum to impart a worldview to your children, just talking to them about what they're learning and experiencing in day to day life should be enough to let them know where you stand. It's part of becoming an independent adult for them to take that and decide where they stand.

 

This is what we always felt, I just didn't know that it WAS wv lol, but then the word keeps poping up and books, websites, curriculums , classes etc and I was wondering if I was doing it all wrong.

[RoughCollie]

What's the rest of the story? What did your teacher friend say?

 

During our discussion, my friend made a very insightful comment. She said, "I'm trying to get them to understand that there is no truth, it's all spin." I didn't say so, but I thought: "So you're trying to create sophists. Remind me not to send my dd to your school!" What I did say was, "Well, that's not going to fly with a Christian student. We believe in truth with a capital T. It's fine to expect her to argue her case using more than one source, but it's not fine to expect her to become a postmodern relativist to pass your course." That pulled her up short, I think!

 

So worldview is alive and well in education, although rarely is it as above board as my friend.

[Apiphobic]

Worldview is definately not merely a religious term. I've heard it used numerous times over the years to describe the mechanism individuals employ to accept/reject/modify/interpret information in the world around them. Everyone has a worldview whether they know it or not.

 

For instance, here are only a few examples of how "worldviews" can affect our lives:

-Politics: if your worldview is that corporations' pursuits of profit is destroying the planet, which political party are you going to choose?

-The Environment: again, an environmentalists' worldview shapes how he/she interprets global weather changes whereas others may interpret the info differently

-Race: Is Al Sharpton's worldview different than Don Imus'? Probably

-Child-rearing: Do you believe children are born good and are made "bad" by society? Do you see evidence of this throughout history and everyday in the world and does it affect how you discipline your own children?, etc...

 

I once had a neighbor (an atheist, btw) whose worldview had been shaped by a father who believed that Jewish people were inferior and evil. Consequently, he wouldn't put his money in banks (owned by Jews), nor would he watch TV (Hollywood was run by Jews and everytime he had seen objectionable content on TV it was evidence to him that Jews were methodically trying to destroy his mind). He also believed that every war and bad event thoughout history could be traced to a Jewish root cause. Yes, his worldview was very warped and wrong, but it could not be changed (no matter how many arguments you got into with him).

 

All of us have belief systems concerning mankind and the planet. These belief systems are the "core" of you. Your "worldview" is the "window" through which this "core" looks at life outside itself.

 

Wow, so from this explanation I'm thinking worldview = prejudice

[Diana in OR]

A worldview doesn't have to be static either. As you change and grow, your worldview chages and grows with you.

 

So, yes, Christians have found it useful to label different groups of people has having a certain worldview because it helps us to understand why said people may act the way they do about certain topics and why they might respond to us in a certain way. It helps you understand the logic someone else has followed to reach their conclusions about life, politics, and other things.

 

HTH

 

Sadly, though, I think I'm seeing the term being abused. In our case, our friend was using his "worldview" to presume that no one could be a Christian and belong to a certain political party. I rather saw it as no one could think like him, and belong to that political party.

 

I received a hs newsletter yesterday that stated the majority of Christian children who attend ps lose their Christian worldview by the time they graduate. Imo, since the author didn't back the statement up with any specific information, or even any basic "this is what a Christian worldview is" disclaimer, I have to think the author of the artical began with the presupposition that a Christian worldview sees hsing and Christian school superior to ps.

 

Even as I write this, I am thinking how the term "worldview" could be abused by Christians to defend their doctrinal beliefs and turn them into "this is the only way to be a Christian". It would be kind of like saying, "No one with a Christian worldview ever [dance, drink, eat meat...ad naseum].

[Phred]

I had a conversation yesterday that drove this home to me. My neighbor teaches writing at a local college that caters to working adults. She is currently teaching a course on persuasive writing - rhetoric, essentially. She came to me to ask how to talk to one of her students about a paper the student had written. It was a critique of a feminist article from an evangelical Christian perspective. She was concerned that the student was unable to think outside of her Christian assumptions enough to support her arguments without reference to the Bible. During our discussion, my friend made a very insightful comment. She said, "I'm trying to get them to understand that there is no truth, it's all spin." I didn't say so, but I thought: "So you're trying to create sophists. Remind me not to send my dd to your school!" What I did say was, "Well, that's not going to fly with a Christian student. We believe in truth with a capital T. It's fine to expect her to argue her case using more than one source, but it's not fine to expect her to become a postmodern relativist to pass your course." That pulled her up short, I think!

 

So worldview is alive and well in education, although rarely is it as above board as my friend.

Of course, notice that you use the word "believe" and then proceed to speak as if it were fact. You've proven her point. And, while it's not correct to ask students to alter their beliefs to pass the course it's also not correct to ask the teacher to recognize that belief. Which is what most Christians seem to expect these days. Truth with a capital 'T' is a perfect example of spin. Catchy phrase, it's got it all. I know you believe it, emphatically even, but it's still proving her point.

[Plaid Dad]

What's the rest of the story? What did your teacher friend say?

 

She seemed to accept that it's not her job to change her student's worldview, but only to teach her a set of skills that she, the student, will use as she sees fit. I still don't think my friend gets religion at all, but at least she knows that she doesn't understand. It would be very easy for her to write her student off as a benighted fundie, and to her credit, she hasn't done that.

[Plaid Dad]

Of course, notice that you use the word "believe" and then proceed to speak as if it were fact. You've proven her point. And, while it's not correct to ask students to alter their beliefs to pass the course it's also not correct to ask the teacher to recognize that belief. Which is what most Christians seem to expect these days. Truth with a capital 'T' is a perfect example of spin. Catchy phrase, it's got it all. I know you believe it, emphatically even, but it's still proving her point.

 

I don't see how I was proving anything, other than that these two people had conflicting points of view and were therefore likely to talk past each other. Rather like you and I, it seems.

 

My point here, for anyone else who's reading, was that the teacher and the student have conflicting worldviews - one believes (without question) in relativism, the other believes (without question) that there are absolute truths. These are their base-level assumptions, and they are in direct conflict. They will not be able to work effectively together until that conflict is made obvious, at very least to the teacher.

[RoughCollie]

I agree with your point. Thanks for answering my "rest of the story" question, btw.

 

RC

 

My point here, for anyone else who's reading, was that the teacher and the student have conflicting worldviews - one believes (without question) in relativism, the other believes (without question) that there are absolute truths. These are their base-level assumptions, and they are in direct conflict. They will not be able to work effectively together until that conflict is made obvious, at very least to the teacher.

[Liberty]

Wow, so from this explanation I'm thinking worldview = prejudice

 

I would say that prejudices definately help define one's worldview. Taken to an extreme you get a worldview that could lead to terrible, hate-filled societies such as in Nazi Germany.

 

Dictionary definition of worldview:

The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

 

Although, I think we all have microcosmic worldviews, not just one overall worldview. I've heard the term used on both scales.

[Tutor]

I have always assumed the term/ concept "worldview" was synonymous with "perspective" or "where I'm coming from." It's just the modern lingo for these concepts. Many try to shorthand it by saying "Christian worldview" or "Muslim worlview" or "western worldview" or "eastern worldview" to sum-up the majority tendencies of a group, but that gives the term a slightly different definition from its application to an individual... and collective worldview run amok is stereotyping (and even further would be prejudice). Thus why we get frustrated over the stereotyping of homeschoolers. US homeschoolers tend to be evangelical Christians from two-parent families in middle to upper-middle class households where at least one parent has a college degree. Tend. But we all know that it is not true of all by any means. Most of us would probably fall into one of the four categories I mentioned, but not all four.

 

Understanding a person's worldview can be very helpful, but its limitations must be acknowledged. I can't possibly know everything that shaped an individual and their thought process. I can probably pinpoint main influences, but not every nuance. In our small group at church we are sharing brief synopses of our life stories with each other so that we can better understand each others' perspectives on future discussions. I gave mine last week and have since realized at least 5 things I left out that others may find pertinent to the shaping of my worldview.

 

Worldview is passed from parent to child unconsciously. It's not something you have, it's something you are, and you teach it as you teach speaking or mannerisms. As our kids get older, we need to make them aware that everyone sees the world differently depending on the circumstances and teachings that shaped them. The best way to introduce them to other worldviews, imo, is to have them meet as many different types of people as possible and make them confident to ask questions. Let others speak for themselves as much as possible so that you don't filter their worldview through yours. Now, obviously, my worldview will have more impact on my children than the worldviews of others, and will "taint" their views and interpretations, but that is true of everyone at all times.

 

I hope that this was helpful and not just rambling :001_smile: Great question. Thanks for making me wrestle with the idea and try to put it into words. This has been very helpful to me. I have enjoyed reading the other responses.

[Liberty]

In our small group at church we are sharing brief synopses of our life stories with each other so that we can better understand each others' perspectives on future discussions. I gave mine last week and have since realized at least 5 things I left out that others may find pertinent to the shaping of my worldview.QUOTE]

 

What a wonderful idea! How has this activity affected the dynamics of your group?

[Meliss]

During our discussion, my friend made a very insightful comment. She said, "I'm trying to get them to understand that there is no truth, it's all spin." I didn't say so, but I thought: "So you're trying to create sophists. Remind me not to send my dd to your school!" What I did say was, "Well, that's not going to fly with a Christian student. We believe in truth with a capital T. It's fine to expect her to argue her case using more than one source, but it's not fine to expect her to become a postmodern relativist to pass your course." That pulled her up short, I think!

 

You rock! :) (I can't believe I just said that to Plaid Dad!) I hope that teacher listens to you and doesn't penalize the student for thinking differently!

[Tutor]

We are still pretty early in this process, but it has helped me understand why one member tends to be shy (wasn't allowed to express anything that may be seen as contrary as a child) and has helped me find someone who really understands teachings I learned as a child because they had the same teachings and aren't trying to understand from an "oh, I heard they think this" perspective.

 

I am looking forward to seeing how discussions progress now that we have some background knowledge about each other. We are new to the church, so it has really helped me view these people as complex individuals with pasts and dreams and has provided me patience and inquisitiveness and genuine care for these people that it otherwise would have taken years to find if I found it at all. I hope that makes sense. (I feel it, and it sounds better in my head than it looks written out here.)

[Liberty]

That does make sense. Do you mind me asking how the process was facilitated? Was there a leader who asked specific questions to get everyone to feel comfortable opening up or did it take place in a different way?

[Tutor]

It began with our reading a book called The Emotionally Healthy Church and then one of our elders and his wife went to a conference at the church pastored by the author. (This elder leads/ moderates our small group.) The church leadership felt that it was important that members and visitors to the church disciple each other and not just hang out and share air, so to speak. To do that, we really need to know each other as much as we can. Being vulnerable and open and honest allows us to really get to know people and see them as reflections of God. It also keeps the other person as our focus and keeps us from trying to make everyone like us. (At least, it should. LOL)

 

As I said, we are still early in this process. Our family is new to the church and this emphasis on really knowing and loving one another sacrificially and honestly has been building for awhile but has become more purposeful in the last 6 months or so. Most of my thoughts are theory with only limited practice behind them so far.

[Leta]

I am going to quote that to about nine profs, Plaid Dad- "You can't expect me to become a postmodern relativist, or, for that matter, an existentialist just to pass your course." Because, you know what, you can't.

 

This reminds me a little of the chapter in TWTM dealing with the teaching of character/morals/the order of things in general. I.e., belief in God being considered a bias, and non-belief being considered neutral, and that being intellectually dishonest. (I'm paraphrasing here, don't hate me, please, Jessie and Susan!) Also, how trying to teach character and morals in a vacuum is an exercise in futility.

 

This statement of Plaid Dad's, like that chapter in TWTM, synthesizes and voices some thoughts and feelings that I have had, for, oh, I dunno, since I could think stuff like this through to its logical conclusion.

 

I think some things are relative, but I'm a believe in Big T Truths, too- even though my religious persuasion is different from about 80% of this board's membership, and I was raised in a secular household, for whatever that's worth.

[Storm Bay]

I

Worldview is passed from parent to child unconsciously. It's not something you have, it's something you are, and you teach it as you teach speaking or mannerisms. As our kids get older, we need to make them aware that everyone sees the world differently depending on the circumstances and teachings that shaped them.

 

Yes and no. Not all children grow up to share their parents' worldviews. I have a few things the same as my parents, but not all, which irks them at times. My uncle, and atheist who recently retired after a full career as an oncologist researcher (biochemist) and then a dean at 2 unversities, certainly does not share the worldview his Mennonite parents had.

 

Also, I think some people share some of this by teaching, too. While none of my family, my husgand or 2 of my kids is racist, I have one child who didn't like to see people of different colours than ours at quite a young age. I was quite shocked and horrified at that reaction at first, to be honest, because I thought that that type of reaction was always taught. This child has seen me interact with many people of various religions, races, etc. on a regular basis. Plus, one of mine really, really wanted to grow up to be African when she was little. So I had to do a lot of teaching to rectify that negative reaction my child had.

[Quiver0f10]

Thank you everyone! You have given me a lot to think on and I appreciate the discusiion and the recommended links.

[Storm Bay]

"World view" came into prominent use primarily because religionists needed to justify theirs. You'll notice that all the sources provided are Christian... even those explaining other's "world views". It's just another way to label and thus be able to more easily categorize other people. The world isn't black and white and someone who thinks one way about one thing might not think the same way about a whole range of other issues. As was mentioned in this thread... you can too be a <blank> and be a Christian.

 

So... what's the difference between a pro-life, anti-evolution, fundamentalist Christian and an anti-choice, anti-science, bible-beating religionist?

 

Your world view.

 

So, would you say then that you believe the philosophy of scientific materialism?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

So, would you say then that you believe the philosophy of scientific materialism?

 

I've never heard of that. What is that?

[Storm Bay]

I've never heard of that. What is that?

 

I'm glad you asked;). I won't be able to give an in depth definition of this at the moment, because I was just reminded of this philosophy today. Basically it is the philosophy that origins started from "nothing," meaning no God or higher power. It has been the main philosophy behind science for about 200 years, since the time that religion and science split in Europe. It's older than that, of course, and that type of philosophy appeared in a few of the Greek philosophers. I have a long reading list ahead of me. I just finishted two long days at my first homeschooling conference ever, so need some rest before going into this more.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

x

[Jenny in Atl]

I can't find a definition of this without going to an intelligent design site. Is there a third party web site that might have info?

[Storm Bay]

I can't find a definition of this without going to an intelligent design site. Is there a third party web site that might have info?

 

You may wish to try simply materialism. I will look for more info tomorrow. I do remember hearing about materialism in university when I was not a Christian. It's been a long time, and I don't remember if it was in science, one of my women's studies courses (my favourite was on methodology by a philosophy professor) or in some other course I took. I mean materialism as a philosophical approach, or a method of thought. It would be hard to google, though, because people might use it to mean being materialistic in having lots of stuff.

[Jenny in Atl]

Ah, yes I was thinking the stuff kind. Thanks, I've never heard of this. I will Google further.

[Storm Bay]

Ah, yes I was thinking the stuff kind. Thanks, I've never heard of this. I will Google further.

 

I just googled "philosophy materialism", with no quotes, and found some things, but since I have to sign off now, I didn't read them tonight. I found both secular and religious sites.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I just googled "philosophy materialism", with no quotes, and found some things, but since I have to sign off now, I didn't read them tonight. I found both secular and religious sites.

 

Here's from a secular site. Warning, not friendly to creationism. But very informative.

[Storm Bay]

Here's from a secular site. Warning, not friendly to creationism. But very informative.

 

Okay, this link above is unfriendly to creationists, but it's not simply discussing materialism on its own. For secular sites that discuss materialism on its own following are some links. Some are easier to follow than others (some are more for the philosophically minded.) There are Christian sites that discuss materialism, but to be academically fair minded, I thought people might like to see it on its own rather than interpreted by someone who doesn't believe it (like me, at least now). These all appeared on the first page when I googled "philosophy materialism" with no quotes. I did not include any sites that are Christian so far as I know, but I haven't read all these yet. For things such as this I do better with hard copy rather than on screen. Also, I did study some of this when I did women's studies and other arts courses, so it's not new to me. Materialism was found it a great deal of the feminist philosophy we studied way back in the early 1980s, although not all, plus we studied various historical philosophers and thinkers in other areas.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html

http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/MATERIALISM_MIND.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-369034/materialism

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyschoolssystems/p/materialism.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Okay, this link above is unfriendly to creationists, but it's not simply discussing materialism on its own. For secular sites that discuss materialism on its own following are some links. Some are easier to follow than others (some are more for the philosophically minded.) There are Christian sites that discuss materialism, but to be academically fair minded, I thought people might like to see it on its own rather than interpreted by someone who doesn't believe it (like me, at least now). These all appeared on the first page when I googled "philosophy materialism" with no quotes. I did not include any sites that are Christian so far as I know, but I haven't read all these yet. For things such as this I do better with hard copy rather than on screen. Also, I did study some of this when I did women's studies and other arts courses, so it's not new to me. Materialism was found it a great deal of the feminist philosophy we studied way back in the early 1980s, although not all, plus we studied various historical philosophers and thinkers in other areas.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/materialism.html

http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/MATERIALISM_MIND.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-369034/materialism

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyschoolssystems/p/materialism.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/

 

Wait, though -- I've heard of materialism. It's "scientific materialism" that I'd not heard of. You had heard that term before the seminar you attended?

 

And that's a different animal, it looks like. If you google the wiki on "scientific materialism," it's used differently and with different intent. Or rather, it looks that way from my travels with google yesterday.

 

I could be wrong. But I've not seen a site that uses or references "scientific materialism" as anything but how I see some people of faith use the term "secular humanism." See, "secular" I understand, and "humanism" I understand. But when they are paired as "secular humanism," they are most often used with a sneer, a spit on the floor (literal or figurative, lol), or in a cautionary tale tone of voice. (Though to be fair, secular humanists self-identify. And it doesn't appear that any "scientific materialists" self-identify. It *appears* from what I'm reading to be a label that someone placed on a group to malign them.)

 

I am very happy to be corrected. I contend, however, that folks will claim to be scientists. Some will claim to be materialists, or at least subscribe to some of the components of materialism -- that the material, the physical, is all we can know. What I can see and feel and describe with physical attributes is all that is real and true. Anything else is mere speculation. (Is this a correct reading of this philosophy?) But... as a final contention... no one claims to be a scientific materialist. Others claim that some are scientific materialists as a pejorative label.

 

I agree with you about online vs print. Bleah. That's the reason I despise online classes. I go broke on ink.

[pixelroper]

It *appears* from what I'm reading to be a label that someone placed on a group to malign them.)

 

Why isn't it just a plain label for the purpose of being specific? I'm not sure I'm reading this right. My understanding of the label is that it specifically identifies the realm of science and the role of materialism.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Why isn't it just a plain label for the purpose of being specific? I'm not sure I'm reading this right. My understanding of the label is that it specifically identifies the realm of science and the role of materialism.

 

I don't know. Why isn't it? I don't know that it isn't. I don't know that it is. ?? I'm just reading and this is how I'm understanding it.

 

Like I said, I'd love to be corrected, and I'd love to know who are the people who call *themselves* scientific materialists.

[Storm Bay]

I don't know. Why isn't it? I don't know that it isn't. I don't know that it is. ?? I'm just reading and this is how I'm understanding it.

 

Like I said, I'd love to be corrected, and I'd love to know who are the people who call *themselves* scientific materialists.

 

There may not be any, but terms such as this are often started by others who are trying to define things. For example, anabaptists (meaning no or without baptism) were first called that by their critics, but now they call themselves this. The term isn't even correct, because anabaptists do baptize, they just don't do infant baptism. I honestly don't think most if the scientists I personally have met and known have spent much time considering the philosophies behind the science they practice because in most cases philosophy and science have been separated just as much as engineering math and pure math have been.

 

Since I've been on both sides of this argument (evolutionist for about 22 years, non-evolutionist since then), I can honestly say that the sneers happen both ways. I don't sneer at people who I might call scientific materialists, because I was one myself. I understand the viewpoint, even though after I examined the data closely, I changed my mind. I've even had some scathing and sarcastic reactions from non-science people over this issue--very dogmatic about evolution being a fact (they don't even understand theory as defined by scientists). Since I have studied evolution in more detail than the majority of people I meet, I always find this reaction rather ignorant, kind of like the sociobiologist David Barash in The Whisperings Within, a book I tore apart in a an essay for a Methodology course without ever leaving the realm of science (we had to analyze the argument using the parameters of the author.) fwiw, the evolutionary ethology professor I had had no respect for sociobiologists because they didn't think sociobiologists practiced "real" science.

 

There are secular/materialist scientists who aren't convinced evolution is still a strong theory, and an example is Michael Denton who has written a book on my what to read list called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. I'm guessing he's considered a quack by at least some, but that's nothing new for unpopular theories, right or wrong.

 

The person who I first heard use this term wasn't sneering at all, but would prefer to see an open dialogue happen between the 3 camps of evolutionists, ID'ists and Creationists. If you do your research, you will see that materialism was one of the prevalent philosophies during the change from science and Christianity being closely aligned to the separation of Christianity and science. This was very apparent to me when I studied the history of science in a secular university--over the centuries from Aristotle to today there is a close link between prevailing philosophies and/or religions and science. Also, until the resurgence of materialism around the turn of the nineteenth century, the origins of life and universe discussion was mostly, if not completely, relegated to religion and philosophy rather than to science.

 

To call something "scientific materialism", as I see it, is merely a way of separating science not based on any preconceived idea of a God or any higher being from science that presupposes God or a higher being. I highly doubt I'd be skeptical of it if I'd heard it when I was an evolutionist. Language is always evolving. I think there are too many people on both sides of this argument (evolutionists and creationists) who get into the attack/defensive modes when this comes up. I've seen some Christians use poor science to back their claims, or who are afraid to examine the scientific evidence to see what's out there. I've also seen secular scientists do the same.

 

But I asked the question of Phred originally because I wonder how many hard-core evolutionists have thought about the philosophy behind what they're doing. Just as there are Christian extremists, there are evolutionary extremists. For example the bioethics professor at Harvard, Peter Singer is one of these. I'm sure not all evolutionists agree with all he says.