Thread by @AlsoACarpenter

I am among those who eschew "worldview" talk, and always have. Inasmuch as it means something like "the way you generally see things" or even "belief system," I think it's pretty straightforward. But it is often used by apologists to be some sort of totalized system of ideas, 1/

2/ answering all "basic" (doing a lot of work here!) questions, and I dare say every truth in the set is treated as a theorem. As such, contradicting one piece contradicts the whole, and accepting one piece requires acceptance of the whole.

3/ To me, this is just some strange Josiah Roycian idealistic nonsense. Nothing like this exists for flesh and blood humans. And I'd argue further that whatever we do have that is closest to this idealistic nonsense is something that we literally ALL ALREADY SHARE.

4/ If there is such a "worldview," literally every human shares this worldview. How do I know? Our thousands of individual actions performed each day (including thoughts), which are a combination of knowledge, belief, and desire (else they are not properly "actions"), reveal

5/ that we view the world about 99% the same. Our "belief systems," on the other hand, are chosen, contingent, full of contradictions, incomplete, and mostly only SEEM like a "system" to us, though they are nevertheless important. But if you think of everything you thought and

6/ did since you awoke this morning, you'd see that you live in a near identical conceptual world to every other human on the planet, sharing the VAST majority of basic beliefs about how the world works. I could go on; but for me, I think "belief system" is useful (though it is

7/7 rarely if ever a proper "system") while the apologist's "worldview" is nearly delusional. It may be a comforting delusion; but it's mostly just a useful weapon against opponents.

Let's just debate ideas, okay?

Interested in @DawsonVosburg's thoughts here as well.