Worldview

[brightlights]

Abraham Kuyper helped to coin the term "worldview". According to him, any worldview must deal with three relations:

1) How man relates to God
2) How man relates to man
3) How man relates to the world

In his estimation #1 is the foundation that #2 and #3 are built upon. I think he makes a compelling case that anything less than this is not a worldview.

What do you think?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'd think that anything that describes how a person views and interprets the world is a worldview regardless of whether it includes #1.

 

[brightlights]

I'd think that anything that describes how a person views and interprets the world is a worldview regardless of whether it includes #1.

Is it possible to not include #1?

 

[David Jerome]

I agree with Tinker. The first one mention is just the most common world view (there's something like 2 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, and over a billion Budhists, with Hinduism not far behind, and then of course, followed by all the remaning religions).

I'm guessing that the person the OP mentioned only mentioned mentioned #1 because of how common it is; not because he thought it was some necessary foundation. But again, regardless of that man's intent, Tinker is still correct: #1 isn't needed to have a worldview.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Abraham Kuyper helped to coin the term "worldview". According to him, any worldview must deal with three relations:

1) How man relates to God
2) How man relates to man
3) How man relates to the world

In his estimation #1 is the foundation that #2 and #3 are built upon. I think he makes a compelling case that anything less than this is not a worldview.

What do you think?

I think he's wrong. It may well be the case that a particular worldview builds (2) and (3) upon (1), but that isn't true of all worldviews. Arbitrarily restricting the definition to only include such worldviews is a word game, nothing more.

 

[brightlights]

Tinker classifies himself as an atheist. David classifies himself as a deist. Both of these worldviews first describe how man relates to God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Tinker classifies himself as an atheist. David classifies himself as a deist. Both of these worldviews first describe how man relates to God.

And as we pointed out, some worldviews do make mention of how man and God interact. But not all of them do - case in point being atheism. Atheism, by definition, is merely the absence of belief in deities. As such, it makes no claims as to how man relates to God, nor indeed how man relates to man or to the world.

 

[Davian]

Is it possible to not include #1?

I haven't seen a need for it so far.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And has been mentioned before, atheism isn't a worldview.

 

[brightlights]

And as we pointed out, some worldviews do make mention of how man and God interact. But not all of them do - case in point being atheism. Atheism, by definition, is merely the absence of belief in deities. As such, it makes no claims as to how man relates to God, nor indeed how man relates to man or to the world.

The only thing that atheism does is claim how man relates to God -- namely that he doesn't. You're right, though. Atheism alone does not tell us how man relates to man or to the world. Perhaps this means it's not a worldview in the fullest sense. This is not to demean anyone who is an atheist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Abraham Kuyper helped to coin the term "worldview". According to him, any worldview must deal with three relations:

1) How man relates to God
2) How man relates to man
3) How man relates to the world

I can't imagine why (1) should be a requirement.

What do you think?

I don't agree. I use the term worldview in a meaningful way, and I don't recognize (1) at all.

After all, this is about a worldview, not necessarily a theistic worldview.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I think that (1) would better be defined as, "How one relates to foundational existence." Meaning, at its most basic, what do you think existence is like. Personal (God) or impersonal, logical or random, etc.

I'm not sure if this is required for a worldview though. Need a definition of 'worldview'.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The only thing that atheism does is claim how man relates to God -- namely that he doesn't.

Well, it doesn't say he doesn't - the atheist is simply silent on whether or not they relate. To the atheist, they may, or they may not.

You're right, though. Atheism alone does not tell us how man relates to man or to the world. Perhaps this means it's not a worldview in the fullest sense. This is not to demean anyone who is an atheist.

I would agree with you that it's not really a worldview - it's the shadow of a worldview. It is to worldviews what not-stamp-collecting is to hobbies - it's the absence of one, rather than one in its own right.

But, there are worldviews beyond the religious. Humanism, for instance, is a worldview, one preoccupied with (2), somewhat with (3), and silent on (1).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think that (1) would better be defined as, "How one relates to foundational existence." Meaning, at its most basic, what do you think existence is like.

I like that. One might as well say that one's metaphysics is a basic part of one's worldview. Yes, that sounds about right.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[David Jerome]

And has been mentioned before, atheism isn't a worldview.

Why not?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why not?

Atheism is only a position on one issue -- God's existence. There are many atheistic (i.e. godless) worldviews, but no worldview called "atheism".

Atheism is just a footnote to my worldview. (But note that I don't count #1.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

Atheism is only a position on one issue -- God's existence. There are many atheistic (i.e. godless) worldviews, but no worldview called "atheism".

Atheism is just a footnote to my worldview. (But note that I don't count #1.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

But doesn't your atheism significantly inform your views on #2 and #3?

 

[brightlights]

But, there are worldviews beyond the religious. Humanism, for instance, is a worldview, one preoccupied with (2), somewhat with (3), and silent on (1).

As I have understood humanism, it seems like they go out of their way to say that they're atheistic.

But if they didn't...

If humanists simply dealt with how man relates to man and how man relates to the world without saying anything about metaphysics, could it accurately be called a full worldview?

 

[drjean]

Sounds Biblical to me:

Fruit of the Spirit... first three are inward relationship, second three are outward relationships, last three are Godward relationship.

Galatians 5:22-23

King James Version (KJV) But the fruit of the Spirit is

love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, gentleness, goodness,
faith, Meekness, temperance:

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As I have understood humanism, it seems like they go out of their way to say that they're atheistic.

But if they didn't...

If humanists simply dealt with how man relates to man and how man relates to the world without saying anything about metaphysics, could it accurately be called a full worldview?

I believe so. Humanism is a way of viewing the world, a way of ascribing labels and values to things. Namely, it places primacy on human life.

That it makes no comment on God means that it makes no comment on one thing and one thing only. How humanism views the world is independent of religion.