Is Atheism (et al) a Worldview?

[Quintessence]

Usually, it points to a lack of belief in God or gods.

So I guess we would have to default to a dictionary definition or a consensus of definitions in order to determine what it is telling us out of context.

It seems to me it would be better to engage in conversation with the speaker themselves to get a better sense of what it is they are pointing to. Dictionary definitions are notoriously rubbish for complex cultural phenomenon for which there is considerable diversity in form and practice. An encyclopedia is far more appropriate as a starting point.

 

[PureX]

Nonsense. I will happily defend that which I think and believe.

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

The thing is just that what I think and believe, isn't defined by my disbelief of specific things (= atheism)

You couldn't even make that sentence make sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

No.
It's a singular disbelief, ie, no gods.
A worldview would be a comprehensive set of values & beliefs.

 

[We Never Know]

Nonsense. I will happily defend that which I think and believe.
The thing is just that what I think and believe, isn't defined by my disbelief of specific things (= atheism)



It is the position of not believing the claims of theism.
That's what it is. Don't try to make it more then it actually is.

Atheism doesn't tell you what I do believe. It tells you what I don't believe.



That's short sighted.
My disbelief in god is as much part of my "world view" as your disbelief of pretty much anything you disbelieve is part of your worldview.
This is literally an infinite number of things. Like undetectable dragons following you everywhere you go, leprechauns hiding pots of gold, tooth fairies, santa claus, godzilla, big foot, alien abduction, tarrot card readings, voodoo, magic, reptilians from planet x in the white house, time travelers, extra-dimensional unicorns, etc etc etc. It in fact is only limited by your and other people's imagination.

There's an infinite number of things you don't believe in that you COULD believe in.
So if you wish to say that that infinite number of things you don't believe are all part of your worldview, go right ahead. But surely you see the rather meaninglessness of such an exercise. It seems to me to be a lot easier and more helpfull to simply only include those things that you actually DO believe when discussion / defining your worldview.



Well, theists seem to care.



I'm in full agreement there.
The word is useless when it comes to describing a person.
It is far more usefull to use words that actually DO tell you what someone believes or does as opposed to words that do not.

"Nonsense. I will happily defend that which I think and believe."

"My disbelief in god is as much part of my "world view"

To clarify, is your claim you have belief there is no god instead of lacking belief?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Any worldview that does not feature any kind of God or Gods is an atheistic world view

But atheism itself is not a world view

If that makes any sense??????

That's what I think anyway

One could say there can be a philosophical world view by which dosent include any gods.

Carl Sagon was very philosophical as an example but it wasn't due to the fact he was an atheist , but through the wonders of the natural universe.

 

[Nimos]

It was suggested and refuted in another thread that atheism is a worldview. Is it? Is theism? Agnosticism? Apatheism? Ignoticism? Transtheism?

Or are they a part of what constitutes a worldview?

Explain your reasoning.

I would consider them part of one's worldview. Can only speak about being an atheist.

How big of a role it plays is probably more difficult to say, but there are certain things as an atheist I won't do that religious people might do, such as making a decision or reason based on a scripture.

My opinion about abortion for instance is purely mine based on what I think is the best solution and is not influenced by a particular group whether atheists or religious, but rather by arguments for and against it. I guess that is the freedom that comes with being a nonbeliever, that religious people might not have in the same degree due to the risk of pissing off God.

I would probably compare my atheism as part of a worldview to that of someone being a vegetarian, it affects certain things but isn't completely dominating everything.

 

[Echogem222]

Yes and I responded it is not a worldview.

Either that, or you did not articulate it as well

I explained that atheism is not a worldview, but a worldview of some kind is needed to hold the atheist position.

 

[Echogem222]

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 say that because the respective positions are 'part-n-parcel' with the world view that upholds them, that they should be considered as one and the same as that world view.

I'm an atheist who has a spiritualist worldview, so no, you're incorrect. And not just me, an atheist could believe in ghosts existing, just not God, Gods, etc.

 

[Echogem222]

No, no cause is needed to Lack belief. Lack of belief is the epistemic default. A potted begonia lacks belief, but it doesn't have a worldview.

It's the various, acquired beliefs that require causes, and may be part of a worldview.

When a person starts out, they have no knowledge of God, Gods, etc. or even a reject of belief in such things, because to reject such beliefs means to know such beliefs, it means to have some type of basis, some type of reason to refuse such beliefs, in other words, a worldview.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me it would be better to engage in conversation with the speaker themselves to get a better sense of what it is they are pointing to. Dictionary definitions are notoriously rubbish for complex cultural phenomenon for which there is considerable diversity in form and practice. An encyclopedia is far more appropriate as a starting point.

The terrain is certainly somewhat slippery. There are situations where people who are certain that they have no gods are told that they must have at least one, for instance.

In a general sense, many of the core ideas are simply very personal.

 

[vulcanlogician]

To me, it's more-or-less accurate to call atheism a worldview.

"This world has no gods in it." is a statement about the world, even though it is a negative statement. I guess people are correct to point out that atheism is a lack of belief and, hence, a "lack" of a worldview. But that's splitting hairs. We know what folks mean when they say "worldview." Probably best to just proceed from there with the conversation at hand.

 

[Echogem222]

To me, it's more-or-less accurate to call atheism a worldview.

"This world has no gods in it." is a statement about the world, even though it is a negative statement. I guess people are correct to point out that atheism is a lack of belief and, hence, a "lack" of a worldview. But that's splitting hairs. We know what folks mean when they say "worldview." Probably best to just proceed from there with the conversation at hand.

Atheism, on its own, is not a comprehensive worldview in the same way that theism isn't. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods or deities. However, to arrive at this position, individuals adopt or develop broader worldviews that inform their stance on the existence of deities. These worldviews can be philosophical, scientific, or based on other belief systems.

Similarly, theism, which is the belief in gods or deities, is not a worldview either. Theists often incorporate their belief in gods into a broader worldview that includes moral values, metaphysical beliefs, and interpretations of the world.

In both cases, whether atheism or theism, the specific worldview adopted or developed by an individual will vary, and it's this broader worldview that provides the framework for understanding and interpreting the world, including beliefs about gods or the lack thereof.

In other words, when someone says they're an atheist or theist, it would then make sense to ask them, "Ok, so what's your worldview that causes you to hold that stance?"

Edit: Though if I'm understanding your comment correctly, you may have already meant everything I just said, but you were fairly vague, so it was difficult for me to know that for certain.

 

[Yerda]

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

There are Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Jews who apparently don't believe in gods. Would you say they all share a worldview?

 

[vulcanlogician]

In both cases, whether atheism or theism, the specific worldview adopted or developed by an individual will vary, and it's this broader worldview that provides the framework for understanding and interpreting the world, including beliefs about gods or the lack thereof.

In other words, when someone says they're an atheist or theist, it would then make sense to ask them, "Ok, so what's your worldview that causes you to hold that stance?"

This reminds me of an error in logic made by G.E. Moore about a century ago. Moore was an excellent philosopher, but even excellent philosophers make errors in logic sometimes. It was called "the open question argument." Moore's argument went like this:

1. Certain ethicists want to make the claim that "x is good." (For example, a hedonist makes the claim that pleasure and happiness are good.)
2. It is possible to ask the question: "Is x good?" (In case of the hedonist, it is possible to ask her "Is pleasure and happiness REALLY good?")

3. Therefore, according to Moore, "goodness" is an irreducible concept. Because you can always ask "Is x REALLY good?" when presented with a reduction of what "goodness" may be."

The problem with the argument is that it is circular. Even Moore admitted such when it was pointed out by his colleagues. By proposing a reduction of "goodness" at the outset, an ethicist has answered the question (or proposed an answer). Yet Moore wants to say in his second premise that the question has not been answered.

I sense the same kind of circularity going on with your worldview example. If I say I am a materialist, you can ask, what worldview leads me to materialism. And whatever worldview THAT is must have another worldview that supports it. And on it goes and goes. It's circular.

Edit: Though if I'm understanding your comment correctly, you may have already meant everything I just said, but you were pretty vague, so it was difficult for me to know that for certain.

Yeah man. If you ever want me to clarify something, just ask and I'll do my best.

 

[Echogem222]

This reminds me of an error in logic made by G.E. Moore about a century ago. Moore was an excellent philosopher, but even excellent philosophers make errors in logic sometimes. It was called "the open question argument." Moore's argument went like this:

1. Certain ethicists want to make the claim that "x is good." (For example, a hedonist makes the claim that pleasure and happiness are good.)
2. It is possible to ask the question: "Is x good?" (In case of the hedonist, it is possible to ask her "Is pleasure and happiness REALLY good?")

3. Therefore, according to Moore, "goodness" is an irreducible concept. Because you can always ask "Is x REALLY good?" when presented with a reduction of what "goodness" may be."

The problem with the argument is that it is circular. Even Moore admitted such when it was pointed out by his colleagues. By proposing a reduction of "goodness" at the outset, an ethicist has answered the question (or proposed an answer). Yet Moore wants to say in his second premise that the question has not been answered.

I sense the same kind of circularity going on with your worldview example. If I say I am a materialist, you can ask, what worldview leads me to materialism. And whatever worldview THAT is must have another worldview that supports it. And on it goes and goes. It's circular.

I would make the argument that materialism also isn't a worldview, but a way of specifying what a person's worldview is. So, for example, a worldview which is atheist, materialist, and also other things greatly limits the number of different worldviews the person in question might have.

Yeah man. If you ever want me to clarify something, just ask and I'll do my best.

Alright, good to know, but sometimes it just makes things faster for myself to state my own opinion while also asking you if that's what you meant. I mean, I might not always do that, but in some cases, it makes more sense to (to me anyway).

 

[Twilight Hue]

I explained that atheism is not a worldview, but a worldview of some kind is needed to hold the atheist position.

That's not correct. You don't need or require any worldview to hold an atheist 'position' whatever that means.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I would make the argument that materialism also isn't a worldview, but a way of specifying what a person's worldview is. So, for example, a worldview which is atheist, materialist, and also other things greatly limits the number of different worldviews the person in question might have.

Well, are there certain views that count as "fundamental" worldviews? Like, they don't reduce to anything else? Or is it turtles all the way down?

Alright, good to know, but sometimes it just makes things faster for myself to state my own opinion while also asking you if that's what you meant. I mean, I might not always do that, but in some cases, it makes more sense to (to me anyway).

Do what you think is best, man. Either way works for me.

 

[Echogem222]

That's not correct. You don't need or require any worldview to hold an atheist 'position' whatever that means.

You say that is not correct, but then you also say that you don't fully understand what it is I'm even saying... yeah, I "totally" believe you're saying something reasonable.

 

[Eli G]

... Theism is simply the belief in God, Gods, etc. but to have such beliefs requires a cause, which means some type of worldview, which tends to be a religion of some sort.

I don't think that to believe in God there must necessarily be a religion.

From the point of view of the believer in the God of the Bible, religion begins in a direct relationship of the first human couple with their Father. That human relationship with the Creator took various forms during human history, according to the Bible.

From the atheist point of view, religion is just a human invention that responds to intellectual, emotional, psychological needs, etc. However, agnostics (who could be considered a sect derived from atheism) consider that it could be that God exists, regardless of whether any religion may have anything to do with the matter.

Some theists consider God to be a real being that is not related to religions, and that belief has become quite popular in recent days. Proof of this is that some religious people are abandoning religions and yet they are not abandoning their belief in the Creator... which shows IMHO that religion is not necessary to be a theist.

Of course, my post is very simplistic and the issue is very complex, but ... more or less.

 

[Echogem222]

Well, are there certain views that count as "fundamental" worldviews? Like, they don't reduce to anything else? Or is it turtles all the way down?

No, once you get to the point where you can no longer specify what a person's worldview is, then that would be their worldview. It's like all the ways an apple is an apple, once you've done everything, then you naturally have fully explained what the apple is. Though naturally, a worldview is generally summarized as much as possible as to not waste people's time, but it's important to not get a summarization of a worldview and an entire worldview mixed up, as they are two different things.