In his book, Chance and Necessity, published in 1970, Jacque Monod made the case for the need of what he called authentic discourse. That is a discourse based on real-world knowledge from which we can form a cogent and universal worldview. Monod writes, “Authentic discourse…lays the foundation of science, and returns to the hands of man the immense power that enrich and imperil him today. Modern societies woven together by science, living from its products, have become as dependent upon it as an addict on his drug. They owe their material wherewithal to this fundamental ethic upon which knowledge is based, and their moral weakness to those value systems, devastated by knowledge itself, to which they still try to refer. The contradiction is deadly. It is what is digging the pit we see opening under our feet. The ethic of knowledge that created the modern world is the only ethic compatible with it, the only one capable, once understood and accepted, of guiding its evolution.”

In the absence of an authentic discourse the world is inundated with a bunch of pretentious and partial worldviews. Each of which is believed to be the only one that matters by its followers. And, therefore, pretentious. Partial, because they represent parts of the whole. There is no so-called worldview that is universally accepted. Some believe X and others believe Y so niether X or Y qualify as a complete worldview. They all fall short of the fullness that the term worldview implies. A genuine worldview is one that the whole world can relate to and accept.

The global village, the global connectivity of the Internet expected to bring people together. But the global village did the opposite. It intensified our differences. The Internet has not facilitated free and open communication as envisioned by the founder of the WorldWideWeb Tim Berners-Lee who said, "I hope we will use the Net to cross barriers and connect cultures".

But no, we have a mausoleum of fossilized obsolete ideologies propped up by myopic zealots convincing themselves and others that those ideologies are still alive, valid and self-sustaining.

We have various views-of-the-world like socialism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, fascism, communitarianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam et al. And they all conform to the traditional definition of worldview in that they offer a comprehensive view of the world from a particular standpoint. However, in this age of globalization, electronic communication and information processing particular standpoints have been rendered invalid. Each and every standpoint is constantly overtaken by every other as traditional boundaries separating and protecting them have vanished. To hold fast to a particular standpoint now requires enormous obstinacy that is manifest in the rise of extreme fundamentalism that calls for the elimination, in one way or another, of all who do not share a particular point of view.

Thus, as we see, there is no worldview that actually speaks to the world as a whole. What we have is a rage of ideologies in cacophonous concert all attempting to impose their particular viewpoint on the world as the one and only truism. Such attempts are nothing new. It’s what defines the history of the civilized world. In the past, however, these impositions were the prerogative of an organized state ruling over a bounded territory. Today states of mind take precedence over states and map the landscape via electronic media where armies of like-minded individuals, infused with one dogma or another, can participate and attempt to enforce their view of the world as sacrosanct.

There is, however, one universally accepted dogma at work here whatever the ideology or cultural conceit, namely that human beings are all participating in an exercise that lies beyond the plane of obvious existence. We believe our natures are molded and guided by some influence from the beyond. We believe that the inspiration for all our ideolgies comes from a realm apart from the natural one.

But how can this realm be feeding us conflicting views of itself and the world? How can one god be visiting different beliefs in different gods upon us?

There is no way of knowing that any particular faith or ideology is the genuine one. It’s all a matter of belief. A says what he believes in is true. B and C say the same. They can’t all be right. They could, however, all be wrong. But that possibility is ignored by all because it undermines belief itself. And belief in absolutism gives tacit approval to the violence of extremists. For, if one believes that, according to divine decree, one’s belief system is the one and only truth then what earthly limits can realistically be put on proponents of a particular worldview in their efforts to establish its absolute supremacy?

For fear of the consequences no believer wants to dwell where uncompromising challenges to their beliefs exist. Desire to believe trumps all. Reason and knowledge must not be allowed to encroach upon anyone’s belief system because it poses a threat to them all. This is precisely why Edward O Wilson was summarily attacked from all sides when he published his trilogy based on sociobiology.

Apart from cherry-picking whatever bits of scientific knowledge suits their particular purposes believers of all kinds share a distrust of science if not downright disdain. But there is not a unifying worldview to be found among their various belief systems. They create divisiveness. It is only through knowledge of the world that such a worldview can be found. A genuine worldview that does not need to be imposed on the world but is derived from it. A worldview that, by default, includes everyone. A worldview that puts everything in place. Everything. Including traditional belief systems, which, it will be shown here, are derived, not from a divine realm, but from the very fabric of the natural world.