Is there such a thing as an atheist worldview?

[Dan123]

What makes you think it comes from a monotheistic or Judeo Christian worldview?

Much like the chart much higher up, there’s a complete path on the flowchart to lead you to Christianity if you are a believer. It stops short if you’re not Christian, even if you are a member of another religion.

You seem to be highly sceptical.

What makes me ‘highly’ skeptical?

To me the questions seem perfectly clear, so maybe you could take a look in a dictionary for any words you don’t understand.

When discussing philosophy it’s important to define terms regardless. Relying on assumptions leads to communication issues. I’ll highlight some below. While trying to answer them honestly, I’m not trying to be pendantic, I’m just trying to point out how the vagueness could be misread.

Do you have the power to make free choices?

Free of what? I would say it appears to be that I do for what I think most people would call a free choice. But for example I have a sweet tooth, it’s difficult for me to avoid sweets or stick to a reasonable amount. Now I certainly can will myself not to, but it takes seemingly more effort than many others I know. Is that a free decision? It’s heavily influenced by a lot of things going on in my brain that are out of my control, but ultimately my sweet tooth can’t drive me to the store to buy candy.

Is there an objective truth?
I think there are a lot of objective truths. Some are mathematical or definitional, 1 foot is the same as 12 inches for example is true by definition, it cannot conceivably be false because their definitions are interconnected. Someone could make a 13" ruler and call it a foot, but they’d be discussing a different concept by the same name. I think there are observable truths, things we can measure and have an extremely high confidence in. The wavelength of colors of light, the speed of sound, the weight of an object. Especially when compared to corroborating results of others we can be extremely confident in the reliability of such things. I would say at least in the physical world that we can observe, there is a truth that we then measure to varying degrees of accuracy.

Is it possible to know the truth?
I should have combined this with the above but to summarize it depends on the truth of what. A definition truth much like a mathematical proof is true by definition, we define these truths into existence. I tend to see ‘knowing’ as coming down to degrees of confidence. I know 2+2 is 4 with whatever the closest thing humans can achieve to absolute certainty, I know the sky appears blue because I have a human amount of personal experience and it’s been corroborated by others.

Is anything objectively good or bad?
We’d need to define good and bad before I can tell you if it can be objectively measured. I would say there are numerous objective observations we can make to help in determining the good/badness of an act.

Is there a God?
Which God? I’ve yet to see compelling evidence for one presented.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Well, you might need to update your database of knowledge:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/l11gg/im_a_7_on_dawkins_belief_scale_and_dont_see_the

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vt06q/where_are_you_on_dawkins_scale

Many people are perfectly willing to say they are a 7 on the scale (someone even compared it to knowing square-circles don’t exist!).

Dawkins himself, likely to make himself have at least a semblence of open-mindedness (or make it seem that way) ranks himself a 6.9. And even many of those who rank themselves a 6 or so do that because they define certainty in terms of everyday actionable certainty rather than absolute logical certainty - so they believe God doesn’t exist in a similar way as to how the sun will rise tomorrow. It’s not absolute logical certainty since it is always possible the sun could fail to rise or appear to rise for various reasons, but perfectly actionable everyday certainty.

And you don’t have to certainly “Know” that God doesn’t exist in order to hold the belief that God positively doesn’t exist - you could believe it’s more likely than not that God doesn’t exist, and so accept that God doesn’t exist even if you don’t know it with absolute logical certainty or even complete everyday certainty.

 

[Freddy]

Hi Dan, since I wrote this post I’ve dug out some of my old notes and understand what you’re saying.

I’ve found a more objective set of binary questions which enables us to better understand worldview (or schema as it’s sometimes called). They go something like this…

Do you have the power to make free choices?

It would appear to be true. But no choice is free from external influences. The question is really: Do what extent do external influences govern our choices? If you have free will then you wouldn’t necessarily make the choice same in exactly the same circumstances. In which case the question would be: Why would you choose something else? Either an external circumstance caused you to choose differently or it was an arbitrary choice, no different to the roll of a dice.

Is there an objective truth?

There are objective truths. My tablet is resting against a wooden Buddah. That is objectively true. As to objective moral truths, they are conditional.

Is it possible to know the truth?

If that’s truth with a lower case, then yes. Assuming we can trust our senses.

Is anything objectively good or bad?

That depends on your personal definition of what’s good and bad. There are some things that all reasonable people would agree are bad. But that obviously doesn’t make it so.

Is there a God?

I have been given no evidence to suggest that there is.

Is there more than one valid religion?

Valid? As in true for the person who follows it? Then yes.

Is everything ultimately one?

This existence is all there is, so…yes.

Is everything ultimately material in nature?

Yes.

Is everything ultimately mental in nature?

No.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Strictly speaking, external influences don’t cause us to choose as if we were their instrument, though they are an important factor. We are the ones who are responsible for choosing - the action of choice flows from us ultimately.

 

[Freddy]

Strictly speaking, external influences don’t cause us to choose as if we were their instrument, though they are an important factor. We are the ones who are responsible for choosing - the action of choice flows from us ultimately.

No doubt about it. But I don’t see that as being the definition of free will. I see it as the ability to make decisions without the influence of external factors.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

But that is still based on some existential presuppositions. Do you believe in God or not? That in itself shapes your behaviour and actions.

So does one’s opinion on what that god wants from and for you. So much so that the behaviors of some believers and non believers aren’t that dissimilar.

Does life have any purpose? If so, what is it? The answer to that question will determine your choices.

This is not informed by atheism. A “no” to the god question means the individual determines the answer to these questions and what they mean. There’s no “official” answer to buy into.

 

[Dan123]

Strictly speaking, external influences don’t cause us to choose as if we were their instrument, though they are an important factor.

All that was asked was do we have the power to make free choices, and I said terms needed to be identified and was told they didn’t need to be. This post is a good example of why they do. Free of influence? Free of duress? Free of coercion? Free of consequences? Or simply as NB put it free of control to the point of being an instrument?

 

[lelinator]

What makes you think it comes from a monotheistic or Judeo Christian worldview? It actually comes from a renowned textbook used in the secular psychotherapy course I took.

Hmm, seems a lot like “What’s Your Worldview?: An Interactive Approach to Life’s Big Questions” by Dr. James N. Anderson.

Or am I mistaken?

 

[IanAG]

It wasn’t that book, but it may have referenced it although I doubt it. Possibly the other way round?

 

[IanAG]

I understand and agree to a point.

I guess that I was being intellectually succinct in that I deliberately didn’t want to get into a protracted philosophical discussion about these points.

I simply don’t want to invest the time and energy needed to flesh these concepts out, so maybe it was an appeal to ‘belief’ or ‘instinct’.

My main points are that

• Each of us has a worldview which is an amalgam of our basic beliefs.
• These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview – because they are axioms and are typically argued from rather than argued for
• Therefore any worldview, theistic or atheistic, can only be explored philosophically and logically.
• It is reasonable to expect in any discussion that each person’s worldview be open to the same level of philosophical and logical exploration.
• Belief in a particular worldview has consequences for the individual and society. It is important to consider these potential impacts In any discussion.

 

[lelinator]

Do you have the power to make free choices?

Here’s what I think.

I have no way to know the answer to that question.

So right off the bat we’ve divided people into two groups. Those who accept a situation as it is and are prepared to deal with it accordingly, and those who don’t.

The question of free will is simply unanswerable. But how one answers that question reveals whether one belongs in the group that accepts the truth, or the one that doesn’t.

Is there an objective truth?

Now this question is a tad bit trickier, because it posits the question of whether or not there are things which are true, regardless of whether or not I have the ability to know if they’re true. Take for example the previous question about free will. I may not be able to know if I have free will, but that doesn’t change the fact that I either do or I don’t.

So my answer to this question is yes, there is such a thing as objective truth. But a subset of that objective truth, is the knowable truth.

Hence the inescapable difference between what’s true and what’s knowable.

Is it possible to know the truth?

If the term “truth” here is meant to be all inclusive…then no. There are things that I simply cannot know. Among them are things such as…do I have free will…does anything exist outside of my own mind…and what is the nature of “God”.

But if we limit “truth” to what’s knowable then it may indeed be possible to know the truth. It may be possible to know, what it is that I can and cannot know.

So once again we’re left with a distinction between what’s true and what’s knowable.

Is anything objectively good or bad?

Yes…I am. I am the only objective measure of what’s good and what’s bad. This doesn’t mean that what makes me happy is good, and what makes me sad is bad. It means that what makes me exist is good, and what makes me not exist, is bad.

I am…and the fact that I am is good.

Is there a God?

Yes, but one must be very careful about how one defines God.

Okay, I think that’s enough for now.

Hmm, I wonder which box this puts me in?

 

[IanAG]

Here’s what I think.

I have no way to know the answer to that question.

So right off the bat we’ve divided people into two groups. Those who accept a situation as it is and are prepared to deal with it accordingly, and those who don’t.

The question of free will is simply unanswerable. But how one answers that question reveals whether one belongs in the group that accepts the truth, or the one that doesn’t.

I believe that although we have no way of proving either way, for the purposes of navigating life we assume we know.

I’d suggest that most of society believes that healthy individuals have free will. If not, the whole legal system would be absurd, as no one could be held responsible for their actions.

What do you think?

 

[IanAG]

Hmm, I wonder which box this puts me in?

I’ll get back to you once I’ve consulted my Acme Worldview Sorter!

 

[IanAG]

I’ve been a little unfair here. Behind each question there are quite lengthy explanations and qualifiers. I was really posting the questions to demonstrate the type used to help someone identify their worldview and its strenghts and weaknesses.

 

[Dan123]

If not, the whole legal system would be absurd, as no one could be held responsible for their actions.

Sure but the legal system also recognizes situations like minors, who may lack awareness of consequences and therefore cannot make a reasoned choice, but that kinda moved from us as individuals to us as communities. If I’m aware of the consequences of an act and someone else isn’t, even if we commit the same action we didn’t really make the same choice. We also recognize when someone is under duress, threatened, mentally ill, etc as not having the same repercussions as their choice wasn’t as ‘free’ as others.

 

[Freddy]

lelinator:

Here’s what I think.

I have no way to know the answer to that question.

So right off the bat we’ve divided people into two groups. Those who accept a situation as it is and are prepared to deal with it accordingly, and those who don’t.

The question of free will is simply unanswerable. But how one answers that question reveals whether one belongs in the group that accepts the truth, or the one that doesn’t.

I believe that although we have no way of proving either way, for the purposes of navigating life we assume we know.

I’d suggest that most of society believes that healthy individuals have free will. If not, the whole legal system would be absurd, as no one could be held responsible for their actions.

What do you think?

If I woke up tommorrow with definitive proof that there was no free will…I wouldn’t tell anyone. The consequences of it would be horrendous.

 

[Dan123]

If I woke up tommorrow with definitive proof that there was no free will…I wouldn’t tell anyone.

You might not have a choice.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If I woke up tommorrow with definitive proof that there was no free will…I wouldn’t tell anyone.

You might not have a choice.

This is where the argument breaks down with those who say it definitely exists. It is assumed that there is then some lack of choice at play and a degree of compulsion in decisions. And I might be accused of kicking the can down the road here but I would still be able to make decisions. So if I’ve already decided it would be a bad idea to tell everyone that there was no free will then I could stick with that OR for whatever reason change my mind.

But…the decisions I make are based on every interaction I have had throughout my life. Some are effectively inconsequential and some are of the utmost importance. But they all have guided me to whatever decision I make. How could they not? It’s possible to make a decsion without taking anything at all into consideration but it then becomes arbitrary. A roll of the dice.

The problem is that it’s generally not possible to determine what is likely to affect you and what isn’t. And to what extent each affect has. So it’s like the story of the lack of a nail meant the loss of a shoe, the horse, the fight, the battle, the war and hence the empire. It doesn’t work forwards. But you can certainly ask ‘why did we lose the empire?’ Because you lost the war. And why did you lose the war etc and get back to the missing nail. And you can draw a direct line between each event. Which would imply determinism.

But there are an infinite number of lines criss-crossing and intersecting which may or may not cause a different result. It’s impossible for us to understand them. So it appears as if we are making decisions free from external events. It feels like it’s happening internally. So free will feels like it’s free. But it is effectively determined.

But, and here’s where the rubber hits the road…if it’s impossible to even contemplate how it’s determined, there’s not really much point in claiming it does. We may as well carry on as if it’s not. I see it like the claim that we could be part of some alien game. Well, we might be. But if we cannot know that we may as well carry on as usual as if it’s all real.

 

[IanAG]

Is anything objectively good or bad?

That depends on your personal definition of what’s good and bad. There are some things that all reasonable people would agree are bad. But that obviously doesn’t make it so.

Hi Freddy, I just want to clarify your answer to this question.

Are you saying that you don’t believe that anything is objectively good or bad? It seems that way, because you said that although there are things that all reasonable people would agree are bad, it obviously doesn’t make it so. Have I understood this correctly?

And just to build on that, would you agree that life and the universe is without intrinsic value, purpose and meaning…that everything just ‘is what it is’?

On the other hand, based on your answers to other questions, I assume that you believe that material things actually exist?

This will help me to better understand your point of view.

 

[IanAG]

Much like the chart much higher up, there’s a complete path on the flowchart to lead you to Christianity if you are a believer. It stops short if you’re not Christian, even if you are a member of another religion.

There’s a complete path on the flowchart to lead to all of the major world religions together with minority religions, and also all of the significant atheistic worldviews.

Belief in God isn’t qualified by describing that God. I agree though that it could be improved by using the term God or God’s instead.