Everybody believes in a worldview!

I very much enjoyed your definitions of worldview and belief. In fact, to save time I will just reference those definitions to show we have the same ideas regarding those key words. Cons 1st contention: skepticismI’m surprised that you referenced Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism as they assert that absolute truth cannot be known, not even the very statement that absolute truth can be known could even be known. You then restate my resolution of “everybody believes in a worldview.” You assert that the word belief requires a truth and is therefore negated because of Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism. Two problems with this logic: 1. Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism in stating absolute truth cannot be known is a logical fallacy in the form of a circular argument. It asserts, or rather presupposes the conclusion in the premise. Just adding at the end of the statement by saying, “not even being able to know if the statement truth cannot be known could be known” does nothing to correct this fallacy. It still presupposes that truth cannot be known without any evidence being given. It asserts the conclusion in the premise making it a circular argument and logically fallacious. 2. Even though I reject that absolute truths cannot be known…lets just say that truth can never be known for arguments sake. This does nothing to show logically that one will not have a worldview. You equate the word belief to having an acceptance of truth and therefore wrong because truth cannot be known. You forget that there are often relative truths, or even in the words of academic skeptics…”a plausible truth.” An absolute truth is not needed to have a belief, rather just any form of a justification. Therefore to say if absolute truths don’t exist, then a belief in a worldview cannot exist, is not logically justified. Even believing in Academic Skepticism as a worldview is perfectly plausible if you acknowledge relative or probable truths. Lastly on this subject…saying there are no absolute truths never will be a middle ground for me. It just holds no water in the realm of Philosophy and Logic. Cons 2nd contention: isolation and illusion of beliefYour first sentence in this contention is not in line with the definition you give for worldview. You are asserting here that a worldview is a view held by the world or a majority. Your definition which I agree with is how an individual, often shared with others but not necessarily, views the world however the world has thus far presented itself to the individual. So no matter who or where you are, you can possess a worldview. Even the person locked in his basement his whole life can have a worldview, even though it is very narrow and shielded to larger ideas of worldviews. Your illusion of belief using soft determinism presupposes that the physical reality we experience is all there is…denying the supernatural…again this is a worldview. Then you say that brainwashed individuals don’t have their own worldview because it was forced upon them. Again this is true, or relatively true to that person, and in so makes it their own. In some cases another worldview will take over…but the individual’s ownership of his worldview was never non-existing. Cons 3rd contention: religious aspectsPeople who have never heard of any popular worldview or religious aspect still can and do have worldviews. People that have never heard of these things are probably some form of uncivilized peoples and never have been exposed to such ideas. History shows us that these kinds of people, as shown in current day indigenous tribes located in uncivilized areas, are deeply religious. They believe in the supernatural and have ideas of right and wrong in how it relates to their reality. Even if they were not religious in that aspect they would have a worldview of purely action-reaction combined with self-survival. This round I'm just rebutting the Con’s argument and so now it is back to you sir. Good luck Con!