A coherent worldview can answer the following questions.

The specific language used is more important than the views expressed using it; else ambiguities and metaphors allow for misunderstanding. Talk to Chomsky or 19th century philosophers about this particular claim ;)

But that coherent worldview need not be religious in nature.

ontology : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being ; a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence.

What does the definition of "ontology" hove to do with this claim, sorry if I seem dumb here.

simply, asking yourself about your existence in the world.

I don't think it has to be complete to be coherent. A worldview doesn't give you all the answers; it has more to do with how you perceive the world and your place in it.

An incoherent worldview can also answer those questions but that doesn't mean its correct.

Interesting point, Oscar, though I interpreted "Coherent" in this instance to include "complete" or perhaps "comprehensive."

Brian, your comment doesn't contradict the claim. The claim is that a coherent worldview can answer those questions, not that a worldview that answers those questions in coherent.

Godel proved that any coherent mathematical world view that included basic maths was necessarily incomplete.

If these normal 'world views' include useful maths, then I think they'd be bound by the same result.

It seems very likely to me that coherency and completeness are mutually exclusive for a world view.

Only incoherent world views are complete.

kypernetikos:

That sounds interesting and I would like to read more of your thoughts on this subject. Could you rephrase this and use examples that I could pass on and that most twelve year olds would clearly understand?

Jim: Godel demonstrated a specific result in maths. The way that he did it is fairly involved - I'm not really qualified to comment on it in much detail but here is an exposition of it aimed at normal mortals. What philosophical relevance (if any) his discovery has is much less agreed upon, even if I enjoy proclaiming what I think as if it's fact.

In particular whether or not the same result holds for humanity is a bit of a hot topic in philosophy. JR Lucas holds that it doesn't and says that the fact computers *are* bound by it proves that artificial intelligence will never match human intelligence.

Even if that is true, if you take as a subset of human conciousness, that part which is purely logical, I'm pretty sure that part is bound by Godels incompleteness theorem.

To me, the Incompleteness theorem states that no matter how much you improve a logical/scientific system of thought, it can never be complete.

It also warns you to beware of any theory that does purport to explain everything.

I recommend you do your own reading on the topic, but I might do a few Godel related claims, if you're interested.

Hah1 By definition correct!

The problem is arriving at a coherent world view.

But re-interpreting it, say useful for Jim...

"If we seek happiness, contentment. If we seek to be of value to ourselves and others, then a <world view>, our perception of who we are as an individual, must find a way to answer those questions, at least partially and to our satisfaction. That's how we know where we are going and what we will do tomorrow.

Coherence.. it all hangs together and makes sense, is fleeting, temporary. The only way of having a world view that is stable is to be insane. Ideally we need to be constantly aware that each corner we turn,, each person we meet, each event in our lives may, and probably should change our <world view>.

I try to remember that. I succeed for perhaps 2 % of my life. The rest of the time I do what most people do, ignore it. Its a lot easier but less fulfilling.

Gimme a pizza with double topping pleeze!