John Frame argues that there is no worldview that does not contain circular logic...
Again this worldview thing. I asked a question about what a worldview was in some threat and I got some amazing word-salad not meaning anything. Just a bunch of words thrown together.
I looked up John Frame and it seems as if he is or was some theologian somewhere. In the end it seems to me that anyone who mentions the word 'worldview' is religious.
I came to the conclusion that people writing about 'worldviews' all are religious and can't even imagine that some people are not religious and don't have 'worldviews'. They can't even imagine that people with no 'worldview' exist...
I realize that this is true. Allow me to use an analogy. Say that you had a child...one whom you were trying to discipline to stay close to you for his/her own good..
Well, if I were omniscient and had a child in 1980, a child I knew beforehand exactly when and where would bump into the same tree planted myself in 1980; and be a paraplegic for the rest of his or her life after that accident twenty or thirty or whatever years later; I would not have had the child or wouldn't have planted that tree there...
Please explain. My initial impression is that objectivity is independent of how many people agree, and that even if the majority of folks hold an opinion, a single person understanding to the contrary, if he reaches that position using an appropriate means, may well be objective all by himself.
My opinion is that, when an overwhelming majority of specialists on a subject, whether they are green or black or white or brown, whether they live in Antartica or Argentina or the USA or Germany or Zambia or Russia or Japan; whether they are Christian, Islamitic or Jewish or Buddhist or atheist or agnostic; reach similar conclusions after research on a specific subject and publish their data and findings in appropriate scientific journals.
And the findings are accepted by the vast majority of specialists on the subject. Whether they are white or brown or black or green. Whether the live in Canada or Brazil or Australia or Vietnam or Poland. Whether they are Catholic or Protestant or Muslim or Buddhist or New Age or Zorochastrian or atheist or agnostic.
One of the comments on that article hit the mark for me. It is:
quote:John, while I agree with your points about overly righteous Christians driving people away, you missed mark on what makes an atheist an atheist: We simply do not believe in your God or in any other gods.
For me it was simply that I stopped believing in existence of a God or Gods due to the lack of reliable evidence for the existence of Gods.
The so-called "evidence" provided by the so-called experts on theology were totally unreliable, often contradictory and most often outright lies.
So what do we make of this? Is the difference between believers and non-believers simply a matter of choice?
Nope. The exact opposite for me.
To believe or not to believe is not a matter of choice. It's a matter of convincing evidence.
I don't choose to "believe" that the form of the earth is that of a more-or-less oblong spheroid. I got convinced through reliable evidence that the earth has the form of a more-or-less oblong spheroid. No choice involved at all.
Same as that the chooks coming from the eggs of my other chooks will also be chooks and not sheep. No choice in my beliefs at all.