I'm glad you asked because we were obviously operating with different
definitions.
To begin with, by "worldview" I mean a conceptual framework by which one
seeks to understand all of reality and through which one interprets
his/her experiences. One's worldview consists of his thoughts about
metaphysics (the nature of reality), ethics (how we should live) and
epistemology (the nature and extent of our knowledge). Every worldview
is founded upon presuppositions or ultimate beliefs which themselves are
incapable of being proven by scientific methodology. Of course, not
everyone has consciously reflected on their worldview or philosophy of
life, but everyone has one nevertheless.
By materialism, I have in mind philosophical materialism (also known as
naturalism) which is the belief that matter and material processes are
the sum total of existence. There is nothing outside the material
system which is responsible for the system's existence (i.e.
supernatural). Rather, the system is autonomous and self-existent and
operates according to the principle of cause and effect.
When I asked what conditions would have to exist in order to falsify
materialism as a worldview, I was seeking to demonstrate that on a
practical level, there are none. In the event that a materialist did
encounter a genuine supernatural phenomenon, he would either account for
it in terms of his materialistic philosophy, or if he could not, he
would say that there is such an explanation that remains to be
discovered. Since, as you've said, fasifiability is a necessary
requirement for science, one's belief in materialism does not qualify as
a scientifically derived belief and is thus, an a priori commitment on
his part. It is no different than the Christian's presupposing the
existence of God.
> If such theories or hypotheses are found incomplete or inconsistent they are
> changed, updated or dropped in favour of new ideas, hypotheses and
> theories. As such the materialistic worldview can be falsified. For
> instance the idea that the sun rotated around the earth was found
> inconsistent with the data and the worldview of our solar system was
> adapted to take into consideration our new findings.
What you have described is the scientific method. Again, I am not
opposed to the method itself but rather to the insistence that one must
adopt naturalistic assumptions in order to successfully conduct
scientific experiments. Atheists love to caricature theists as being
anti-science when in actuality it is the philosophical baggage that has
become attached to modern science that we object to. The scientific
method is not synonymous with methodological materialism.
> If I am incorrect about these definitions, could you provide me with your
> definition of materalistic worldview.
Hope that helps.
Keith