Date: January 04, 2021 06:29PM
> "This has raised concerns about how to get people
> to believe in a 'baseline reality'. Increasingly,
> people are willing to say and believe stuff that
> fits in with their view of how the world should
> be, even if it doesn't have any basis in reality
> or fact," said Chris Jackson, a pollster with
> Is there a 'baseline reality' we can agree upon?
> Mormonism is a fraud.
One way to answer this question is to ask whether there is any proposition that all must believe order to have any worldview at all. Sort of like Descartes' inquiry where he concluded a personal baseline reality that he exists because he can think. Of course, that doesn't tell him, or us, about who else might exist besides ourselves.
More to your point, it seems to me that for a person to even entertain a worldview he or she must believe in a baseline reality such that their worldview itself must somehow be related to sense perceptions, and that *whatever* one believes must ultimately be based upon sense data (what happened as experienced by someone?)--either personal sense data or sense data of others that is deemed by them to be reliable. At this point, you can bring in evidence, such that sense data generally stands as the ultimate evidence for anyone's worldview. The difficulty then is reduced to sorting out what counts as reliable sense data (evidence), and what does not; and, of course, what conclusions can be drawn from sense data deemed to be reliable, and what conclusions cannot.
So, the baseline reality is that human sense data provides a window to reality. (Otherwise no worldview could be formed)
Unfortunately, this leaves matters still pretty wide open.
Finally, this was a thoughtful post, as are most of your posts. Why people on RfM feel the need to attack a post and poster as stupid because they either do not understand it, or are not interested in it, is beyond me. There is a fair amount of cultish insecurity here, which I suppose one has to live with if they want to participate.