Is Atheism (et al) a Worldview?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It was suggested and refuted in another thread that atheism is a worldview. Is it?

No. I'm an atheist. My worldview is atheistic humanism.

The atheism refers to my metaphysics, or how I think reality is and works, which is that there is insufficient evidence of gods to believe that they exist and has me living as it they don't.

That brings me to the second plank - my epistemology, or how one decides what is true about the world. Whereas the theist embraces faith as a path to truth, I don't. I'm strictly an empiricist, meaning that reason - usually applied to evidence but sometimes pure reason as with mathematics and logic - is how we know what's true.

And the third plank is my ethics, which is derived from reason applied to intuitions about what is good and right (conscience). Mine is utilitarian for societies and the ethics of reciprocity at the personal level (Golden Rule). It's all of these together that comprise my worldview.

Is theism? Agnosticism? Apatheism? Ignoticism? Transtheism?

No.

"That’s why atheism is a worldview. Atheists make choices based on the view that God does not exist"

As far as I can tell, the only choices I make because I'm an atheist is that I don't read holy books, pray, or worship, and I don't worry about sin or hell. Of course, that's because I'm not an Abrahamic theist. I'm also not a pagan or dharmic, so I also don't involve myself with their rituals and observances.

I'm also an avampirist. I don't believe that vampires exist, either, but that's also not a worldview, and which belief means I don't concern myself with protecting myself from them with garlic or silver stakes or whatever.

Atheism is a position held regarding the reality of God based on a materialist world view. Theism is a position held regarding the reality of God based on a spiritualist world view.

I would rewrite that as atheism is based in an empirical epistemology and theism is based in a fideistic epistemology if one has concluded that gods exist and perhaps an intuitionistic epistemology if one's position is that it just feels like there's a god.

And most atheists around here these days fight tooth and nail to maintain the empty mind label of atheism because they don't want to be called on to defend anything they actually think or believe.

You've never understood atheists. This is a cartoonish depiction, which belies your contempt for atheists and view that they are all dishonest and debate in bad faith, and which doesn't remotely resemble the reality of what atheists are or how they think. Sorry, but whenever I see that kind of bigotry, I'm motivated to call it out and expose it:

Isn't it you who refuses to defend his beliefs? How many times have I asked you to share the knowledge you've acquired non-empirically which you deride empiricists for rejecting. You say that they depend too much on empiricism, which you often call scientism, and which is really a complaint that they don't accept your claims of benefitting from whatever special way of knowing you use that isn't empiricism, but never defend that claim when challenged to do so.

But you don't believe anything, remember? You're just a blank slate awaiting someone else to "prove it".

More of your cartoons.

You couldn't even make that sentence make sense.

That was in response to "The thing is just that what I think and believe, isn't defined by my disbelief of specific things (= atheism)." I think that it's you that couldn't make sense of those words. And it's your inability to assimilate ideas like that that leave you with such a wrong idea of what atheists actually think. Would you like his words paraphrased? Would that help you understand that simple idea?

 

[Valjean]

That's easy. You just want to attack everyone else's beliefs and opinions.

Horsefeathers.

They don't want to discuss religion. They don't even understand it. But they sure do want to attack and belittle it.

I love discussing religion, and I think I "understand it" better than most religious people.
Pointing out factual or logical errors in religious discussions isn't attacking or belittling. It's just participating in the discussion; clarifying and assisting.

Atheists generally understand religious history and doctrine better than the religious. We're also usually familiar with the psychology underlying it.

Who Knows What About Religion

The Pew Forum’s religious knowledge survey included 32 questions about various aspects of religion: the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, world

www.pewresearch.org

**mod edit** Their knees jerk and their comments fly, and that's as far as it goes. It's all resentment and ego. They don't listen to or consider anything anyone else says.

Where are you meeting these atheists? What do they say if you ask them why they're atheists?

We are all different, and we are all the same. So are atheists.

????

**mod edit** Intended to justify the old 'kangaroo court' tactic to anyone stupid enough to fall for it.

What the heck is the old kangaroo court tactic?
I can explain and justify my position. I find most theists cannot. They just mock, belittle and declare atheism nonsense. Forced to a defense, they just regurgitate the same, time-worn arguments and logical errors we've been rolling our eyes over for a hundred years.

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't a worldview a set of beliefs and/or assumptions through which people see the world around them?

"That’s why atheism is a worldview. Atheists make choices based on the view that God does not exist"

Those "choices" are part of the weltanschauung,
eg, choosing to not go to church.
But many elements (values) aren't a choice at all.

If not believing in gods were a worldview, then
atheists would share it. We don't. Some are
commies. Some are capitalists. Some are
touchy feely new agers. Some are cold hearted
jerks (like me). Atheists have very little in common
that could be called a "worldview".....no more so
than people who share the love of hamburgers.

 

[Nimos]

Why would this all matter if in fact morality is objective? Subjective opinions on morality can be very much in error. Nothing has to be guided by objective moral truth for there to actually be objective moral truth. Objective moral truth would be true regardless of how anyone feels subjectively about it. Objective moral truth could exist as the best cause and effect morality. If all humans decide to jump off cliffs because they don't regard the cliff as truly being there even though it is that doesn't make the cliff less real.

But for this, you need a moral agent, yet I see no evidence for one.

If we imagine that there were no laws at all, and I decided to go kill someone for fun, nothing would happen to me, which seems to be why God apparently operates in the afterlife, because that might be the only explanation for why no moral justice is being done to me. So the idea of an objective moral truth seems only to make sense if a moral agent exists.

I regard objective moral truths are there for humans to heed and take personally in their own lives. Morals is about the intrinsic nature of inner motivations, and character qualities in individuals. Ethics is about rules of behavior, and conduct specifically. So I see morals, and ethics are not the same thing.

I think morals are there as a result of survival as a species. Morally seems beneficial for us as a group as it helps us work better together through trust and to get rid of those who deviate too much from the norm. Obviously, we can bend morality to our personal preferences using force, military, majority rules, punishments, police corruption and bribery etc.

I don't think there is any objective moral truth to any of this, it is arrived at based on evolutionary history and culture.

Truth is defined as in accordance with fact and reality.

But I don't think there is any moral truth, at least I haven't seen any being presented where it is obviously so.

 

[osgart]

for this, you need a moral agent, yet I see no evidence for one.

If we imagine that there were no laws at all, and I decided to go kill someone for fun, nothing would happen to me, which seems to be why God apparently operates in the afterlife, because that might be the only explanation for why no moral justice is being done to me. So the idea of an objective moral truth seems only to make sense if a moral agent exists.

I don't see how a moral agent is required for objective moral truth. The fact that we can talk about moral justice, and determine all the best values, and virtues to live by and then create effective laws against vices, and crimes suggests that a moral truth exists. The fact that there are selves, and others necessitates a moral framework for well being, quality of life, peacefulness, and productivity.

People can rule the world in totally cruel subjective ways, and still they'd only be destroying life for everyone and themselves. The truth can be totally ignored and still there'd be truth. In fact killing someone for fun, with no consequences and law is actually damaging the human race, and making life impossible to survive and succeed. Morality bears cause and effect in reality. Lack of morality also bears cause and effect.

Morality is there to establish what's trustworthy and deserving. Moral truth can be totally avoided and that would damage life in general. There's a heavy price to pay for everyone when we ignore that.

There are laws of good conscience where virtues run contrary to vices. Dictators may thrive with effective immoral codes that make them live their entire lives in power and wealth, ruling by fear, and living toward inhumane pleasures, but that doesn't change the fact that without a truth of conscience millions would live in torment, suffer, and die under the cruel power of such dictators.

A reasonable person wants to establish public trust, and reward what is deserving while making it increasingly hard for those who would commit vices. Good will is what morality is all about. Moral people want to establish good will, and put general welfare at the highest priority. Wars ensue when the public trust is undermined.

I realize people are tribal, and there are in groups or out groups, and class systems. I realize there are biological factors, and environmental factors, as well as economic factors in how people behave. But there are lines humans shouldn't cross with other humans. It breaks down society.

 

[Nakosis]

It is much more than an influence; my perception of reality changed. By definition that is a change in worldview IMO. Knowing that there is a Creator, being moved by the Holy Spirit, changes everything. I woke up from state of ignorance.

Sure, you feel different about the world. However the world doesn't really change from what it always has been.

That is why the Buddhists say;
“Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters.”

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Eli G said:


Eli G said: Those who believe that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with a Creator do not feel afraid when they make decisions that may have different consequences on other humans... and they can be very bad to others.
He who fears God, knows that if he harms his fellow man he will have a non-human Judge who will judge him.

I'm not so sure. s/he has a valid point in that Christians are kept in line by threats and rewards; by fear of the God they claim is compassionate and loving. There's an implication that Christianity motivates people to do good, and that those lacking such a motivation may be out of control and wont to do harm.
However: Throughout history this has had little apparent effect on the behavior of the God fearing Christians; while the atheists, who've perforce developed their own, internalized moral systems, usually behave as or more in line with Christ's precepts than the Christians.

Bit to cover here...

1) Their post assumes that atheists can be bad. That's a truism (any group can contain bad actors) but is being used to suggest atheists are more likely to be bad.

2) Their post assumes having a fear of God motivates one to do less harm to their fellow man. Even assuming believers follow the tenets of their faith...and that's quite the assumption...you'd need to simply accept that the tenets of their faith includes a simple statement to not do harm to their fellow man, and nothing else contradictory.

Perhaps Jains can make that claim with a straight face, I'm not sure. Perhaps there are specific groups of believers who can. But if we're talking 'believers in a Creator' writ large, it's pure bunkum.

Finally, the measure believers use to judge 'good' behaviour is their tenets of faith. You are judged good by adhering to it. For an atheist to be judged 'good' they'd need to follow the tenets of a faith they don't believe in, and ignore their own conscience, despite automatically failing one of the key tenets of most every faith...to be a believer.

In other words they are automatically set up to be 'less good' in the eyes of the faithful AT BEST, regardless of their behaviour towards their fellow man.

 

[Valjean]

Do Christians even need to develop a conscience?
Might not being raised with a clear, deontologic set of not necessarily consequentialist rules obviate the need to develop the habit of actually thinking about the consequences and appropriateness of these precepts?

Might not a strict application of the rules be counter-productive, in some cases?
Without an internalized moral conscience, or habit of moral reflection, how is one to decide?
Historically, Christians seem to have had have had little trouble shedding their external morality, when convenient, and committing atrocious acts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I offered lack of belief but you chose to say "I don't believe any such thing exists".

Not believing x, means you lack belief in x.

Not sure what you think your point is...

So IMO if you don't lack belief, then your belief is gods don't exist.

You're not making any sense.
What do you think "not" means in "not believing"?

Not believing X is true, is not the same as positively believing X is false.

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

Correct. IOW, not believing the claim that there are gods.

Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

I agree.

To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Disbelief that X is true = lack of belief that X is true = not believing X is true.

They all mean the same thing I would say.
None of them means "positively believing X is false"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes... I wouldn't have asked if not "really"...

I'm an atheist and I didn't understand what you meant by it. So I ask.
Since you said it, I assumed you could also elaborate and explain it.

@Regiomontanus I see you posted in this thread after this reply to you. So you're not going to explain it?

 

[Nimos]

I don't see how a moral agent is required for objective moral truth. The fact that we can talk about moral justice, and determine all the best values, and virtues to live by and then create effective laws against vices, and crimes suggests that a moral truth exists. The fact that there are selves, and others necessitates a moral framework for well being, quality of life, peacefulness, and productivity.

I think we might be talking past each other or using the words differently.

Objective moral truth means that there is a moral agent who has established a set moral truth, meaning that certain actions are inherently good or bad.

The obvious agent, in this case, would be God but could be anything who has established such truth.

The approach you are describing is subjective morality, where we as humans establish what we believe is morally right or wrong. Which I think is what we have been doing since the beginning and also why our morality seems to be changing throughout history.

Subjective morality doesn't mean individual morality, that each person just makes up whatever they believe is right or wrong. But is arrived at based on a lot of things, one of them being our evolutionary history and culture.

Looking at a person like Hitler for instance, he didn't arrive at his morality all on his own, he was influenced by the time he lived, the culture he was raised in etc. All these allowed for his morality to dominate in the time he lived and convinced a lot of like-minded people that this was an acceptable thing to do.

The same way people in earlier history arrived at the moral "truth" that slavery was perfectly acceptable. If there was no moral foundation for slavery at the time, it wouldn't have occurred. The same way that we today for instance don't support beating children, even if some individuals do it, there is no moral foundation for such morality to get hold in today's societies. However, if everyone thought that beating children was a moral thing to do, it would be extremely common to do it. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that hitting children was considered perfectly fine, it wasn't uncommon for my parents for instance to get a slap here and there by the teacher if they didn't behave well.

Again if there is some objective moral truth, then hitting children would always be considered morally wrong. Yet there is no evidence for this being the case as I see it. History simply doesn't seem to support it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Those who believe that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with a Creator do not feel afraid when they make decisions that may have different consequences on other humans

Humanist morality is not based in fear.

He who fears God, knows that if he harms his fellow man he will have a non-human Judge who will judge him.

Many Abrahamic theists are among the most immoral people in the world by humanist standards, and they have no difficulty justifying their behavior. All one need do is believe that he is following his god's will, and they do.

That's the problem with divine command ethics. ANYTHING is considered moral if one believes or can be made to believe that it's God's will. American theocratic Christians are presently doing great harm to America now based in the belief that they think their god wants them to control the sexual behavior and limit the reproductive choices of others, and they feel self-righteous about it.

You just want to attack everyone else's beliefs and opinions.

Just the fallacious ones when expressed in a public forum.

Their knees jerk and their comments fly, and that's as far as it goes. It's all resentment and ego.

Who resents others more than you in these threads? You're continually expressing your grievance regarding being disagreed with. You resent it for some reason.

Willful ignorance deserves the response it gets.

But that describes you as a few others have already noted. You remain willfully ignorant of what atheists believe and what motivates them. I just educated you on much of this a few posts back. Typically, you just ignore it and repeat your already refuted claims. You support none of your claims about atheists. All you see is mean-spiritedness.

And yes, you deserve to be called out on that. You are being told every time you make a bigoted remark that that's what it is. You seem to never tire of it, nor to modify your position. How is that not the very fingerprint of willful ignorance?

I really don't understand why you react much more angrily than the usual theist in discussion with atheists, but it's personal to you for whatever reason.

 

[Valjean]

I think we might be talking past each other or using the words differently.

Objective moral truth means that there is a moral agent who has established a set moral truth, meaning that certain actions are inherently good or bad.

Why can't moral truth and proper action derive from intrinsic, unconscious, non-judgemental, physical laws, as they do in many Hindu denominations, for example? Why would a conscious judge or lawgiver be needed?

The same way people in earlier history arrived at the moral "truth" that slavery was perfectly acceptable.

Which they justified biblically.

Again if there is some objective moral truth, then hitting children would always be considered morally wrong. Yet there is no evidence for this being the case as I see it. History simply doesn't seem to support it.

Don't a lot of Christians interpret the "spare the rod" quotation as advocating corporal punishment?

 

[Audie]

Horsefeathers.

I love discussing religion, and I think I "understand it" better than most religious people.
Pointing out factual or logical errors in religious discussions isn't attacking or belittling. It's just participating in the discussion; clarifying and assisting.

Atheists generally understand religious history and doctrine better than the religious. We're also usually familiar with the psychology underlying it.

Who Knows What About Religion

The Pew Forum’s religious knowledge survey included 32 questions about various aspects of religion: the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, world

www.pewresearch.org

Where are you meeting these atheists? What do they say if you ask them why they're atheists?

????

What the heck is the old kangaroo court tactic?
I can explain and justify my position. I find most theists cannot. They just mock, belittle and declare atheism nonsense. Forced to a defense, they just regurgitate the same, time-worn arguments and logical errors we've been rolling our eyes over for a hundred years.

Funny how I saw "horsefeathers" and
right away knew who you were addressing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes.

No one shares the exact same world view, but the idea that no gods exist is basically an opinion based on a materialist world view.

Not necessarily. For example, a Buddhist can be an atheist and not be a materialist.

 

[osgart]

I think we might be talking past each other or using the words differently.

Objective moral truth means that there is a moral agent who has established a set moral truth, meaning that certain actions are inherently good or bad.

The obvious agent, in this case, would be God but could be anything who has established such truth.

The approach you are describing is subjective morality, where we as humans establish what we believe is morally right or wrong. Which I think is what we have been doing since the beginning and also why our morality seems to be changing throughout history.

Subjective morality doesn't mean individual morality, that each person just makes up whatever they believe is right or wrong. But is arrived at based on a lot of things, one of them being our evolutionary history and culture.

Looking at a person like Hitler for instance, he didn't arrive at his morality all on his own, he was influenced by the time he lived, the culture he was raised in etc. All these allowed for his morality to dominate in the time he lived and convinced a lot of like-minded people that this was an acceptable thing to do.

The same way people in earlier history arrived at the moral "truth" that slavery was perfectly acceptable. If there was no moral foundation for slavery at the time, it wouldn't have occurred. The same way that we today for instance don't support beating children, even if some individuals do it, there is no moral foundation for such morality to get hold in today's societies. However, if everyone thought that beating children was a moral thing to do, it would be extremely common to do it. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that hitting children was considered perfectly fine, it wasn't uncommon for my parents for instance to get a slap here and there by the teacher if they didn't behave well.

Again if there is some objective moral truth, then hitting children would always be considered morally wrong. Yet there is no evidence for this being the case as I see it. History simply doesn't seem to support it.

You are setting humans as the standard for morality instead of the causes and effects of what a given morality does for the well being, good will, trustworthiness, peace and quality of life for all life on earth. There are inherently good and bad things in life despite the lack of agency, and despite subjective preferences and convictions.

I don't think at all the way you are talking. Objective truth is that something is factual regardless of individual preferences, and convictions to the contrary. Every morality bears causes and effects. Morality is something that people regard or disregard it to their own and others benefit or detriment. I can name about a hundred different values that are positive character traits. I can name plenty of vices that only damage society and are negative character traits. I mean murder is murder. There is innocence in life, and there is guiltiness.

 

[Nimos]

Objective truth is that something is factual regardless of individual preferences, and convictions to the contrary.

Objective truth is that something is true without an observer, and in this case, the observer would be humanity.

Murder is murder but is murder always morally wrong?

Would murdering Hitler have been wrong? If it is objectively true that murder is wrong, then killing him would also be, despite how many bad things he did. Obviously, Nazi supporters of Hitler would have said that murdering him would be wrong, while the rest of us, probably agree that it would have been good.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Objective truth is that something is true without an observer, and in this case, the observer would be humanity.

Murder is murder but is murder always morally wrong?

Would murdering Hitler have been wrong? If it is objectively true that murder is wrong, then killing him would also be, despite how many bad things he did. Obviously, Nazi supporters of Hitler would have said that murdering him would be wrong, while the rest of us, probably agree that it would have been good.

Killing is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. When it is wrong, we call it murder.

 

[Nimos]

Killing is sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. When it is wrong, we call it murder.

So murdering Hitler would be wrong?

 

[Nimos]

Why can't moral truth and proper action derive from intrinsic, unconscious, non-judgemental, physical laws, as they do in many Hindu denominations, for example? Why would a conscious judge or lawgiver be needed?

They could, yet one would still have to demonstrate it to be the case. To me, nature is the closest you get to a moral "agent". Which is unconscious and non-judgemental from what we can see. Yet I still don't think it supports the idea of an objective moral truth, but more as a moral direction, because it is beneficial for us.

"Murder" is an unknown concept in nature, for a term like that to be considered morally wrong you would need an agent capable of understanding its meaning. Which a God could, humans obviously can since we invented the concept.

Which they justified biblically.

Yes, all cultures seem to have had this. There was nothing special about the Jews in that regard, we know from the bible as well that the Egyptians had slaves, it was probably as normal back then as it is to have cars today, if I should guess, I don't think they considered it a big issue at all, to be honest.