Is there such a thing as an atheist worldview?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

Yes to all of them, Ian. Although the first can be a tough one to defend. But how do we get to a point where something is objectively bad without thinking it so in the first instance? You either make your own mind up, or you defer to ‘a higher authority’.

It’s not sufficient to use examples of what every reasonable person would consider bad. It has to be valid for all acts.

 

[IanAG]

Thanks for that.

Without going into too much detail, it would appear that you subscribe to a generally nihilistic (particularly existential and moral nihilism) worldview.

Do you think that is a fair description?

Just out of further interest, do you have any ‘spiritual’ practices?

To reassure you, I’m not intending to get into a debate or a critique of your position, nor to ‘convert’ you.

I simply want to gain a deeper understanding of the different ways in which atheists and anti theists view the world and the beliefs they hold.

I understand that placing individuals in categories can be to over simplify things, but personally I have found it helpful in at least trying to frame a productive discussion.

 

[Raxus]

Is your worldview Catholic though?

Yes. Test it, if you like.

Likewise, the worldviews of those who happen to not believe would run the gamut so much so that it’d make the term “atheist worldview” meaningless.

That gamut would still have some commonality that could be considered an atheistic worldview.

 

[Dan123]

Freddy:

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.

Are you saying that you don’t believe that anything is objectively good or bad? It seems that way

I know Freddy already responded, but to be clear as it touches on something I said, Freddy didn’t say nothing is objectively good or bad he said it depends on definitions.

Lets say you and I agree that causing unnecessary physical harm to someone is bad. Maybe we have different reasons for believing that but suppose we agree on that point.

Now suppose someone shows us concrete evidence that Person A inflicted unnecessary physical harm to someone. We can objectively say that act is bad. It’s and objective determination because it’s not our opinion on whether the act met our criteria for bad that we agreed to. This is why I said above sometimes people use absolute and objective interchangeably but they aren’t really. Now the issue you’re seeing there is that our determination that harming people is wrong is subjective and non-absolute. While most people would agree with it, that’s just a numbers game. And you’d be right, but even if two people have different reasons for believing a moral proclamation, they can still make objective observations if they have a shared definition.

As another example, two people might agree the killing of an innocent person is a morally evil act. One person might believe this because they believe society is harmed when individuals and their lives aren’t protected, another person might believe God has ordered his creation to not kill, and that following God’s word is what makes something morally good. The root of both beliefs is subjective, but they can still make objective observations and conclusions on points where there’s agreed upon definitions.

 

[IanAG]

HerCrazierHalf:

Likewise, the worldviews of those who happen to not believe would run the gamut so much so that it’d make the term “atheist worldview” meaningless.

That gamut would still have some commonality that could be considered an atheistic worldview.

I’m coming to believe that atheist and theist are worldview categories rather than worldviews in their own right.

 

[Dan123]

I’m coming to believe that atheist and theist are worldview categories rather than worldviews in their own right.

Which makes sense, even in both lists of questions, Is there a God is only one of the questions, admittedly with dependent questions that follow. But yes that may explain some of the difficulty this thread had in finding an acceptable resolution.

 

[IanAG]

I know Freddy already responded, but to be clear as it touches on something I said, Freddy didn’t say nothing is objectively good or bad he said it depends on definitions.

Lets say you and I agree that causing unnecessary physical harm to someone is bad. Maybe we have different reasons for believing that but suppose we agree on that point.

I don’t wish to enter into a protracted debate about the validity of beliefs, but simply understand the belief that the respondent holds.

I suppose the question is asking whether the respondent believes in objective good or bad or subjective good or bad, where objective is a fact which is independent of the thoughts and feelings of the individual or group, whilst subjective is a product of the thoughts and feelings of an individual or group of individuals.

Having asked Freddy to explain his answer I read him as saying that he believes that good or bad is subjective.

 

[Raxus]

I’m coming to believe that atheist and theist are worldview categories rather than worldviews in their own right.

There are choices I make as a Catholic based upon my worldview that others wouldn’t, theist or otherwise.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Yes. Test it, if you like.

Years of survey data suggest your worldview differs from others who are also Catholic.
This goes down the CAF version of the “no true Scotsman” rabbit hole I’ve been trying to avoid.

That gamut would still have some commonality that could be considered an atheistic worldview.

Oh? I don’t believe in the super natural, but some atheists do. That would inform answers to the questions but are not informed by atheism.

It’s like asking if my choice of car informs about whether I like puppies.

 

[Raxus]

Years of survey data suggest your worldview differs from others who are also Catholic.
This goes down the CAF version of the “no true Scotsman” rabbit hole I’ve been trying to avoid.

I think you’re making things harder than they need to be. If my worldview conforms to the teachings of the Church, then it’s a Catholic worldview. I’m not sure what’s hard to grasp about that, honestly.

Oh? I don’t believe in the super natural, but some atheists do. That would inform answers to the questions but are not informed by atheism.

That sounds like a problem with atheism’s lack of a cohesive worldview, not the idea of worldviews in general.

It’s like asking if my choice of car informs about whether I like puppies.

Catholicism doesn’t suffer the kind of splintering that would lead to this analogy.

I have a Catholic worldview. There is only one Catholic worldview; if you pick and choose pieces of it, you don’t have a Catholic worldview, you have a Frankensteined worldview instead, made up of a mix of Catholic and other things that is not the same as a Catholic worldview.

 

[Freddy]

I have a Catholic worldview. There is only one Catholic worldview; if you pick and choose pieces of it, you don’t have a Catholic worldview, you have a Frankensteined worldview instead, made up of a mix of Catholic and other things that is not the same as a Catholic worldview.

I’ve never understood this. It’s the difference in believing things to be true and accepting them as being true.

I’m reminded of Peter Garret (of Midnight Oil fame) who ran for election as a Labor candidate a few years back (Labor roughly equating to Democrat). He said he felt like he needed to get involved in politics and the Labor party was the best fit for him. Although he was asked about policies that they had that he’d spoken out about previously. And he said that if elected then as a representative of the party he would support all their policies, despite his misgivings.

This seems to match the attititude that some people have with Catholicism. That they understand the ‘policies’ and support them irrespective of their own personal views.

It’s not a position with which I agree.

 

[Raxus]

This seems to match the attititude that some people have with Catholicism. That they understand the ‘policies’ and support them irrespective of their own personal views .

It’s not a position with which I agree.

Well, for one, the Catholic church teaches a way by which you are to live your life, and that way has had the fullness of its teaching already revealed, whereas a political party is, at its core, a group of people who endorse certain things that might necessarily change over time. Apples and oranges.

Second, there are people who might personally not believe some of what the Church teaches but, because of the impact that the faith has on their life and the lives of others, realize that they, not the Church, are likely mistaken and therefore do their best to learn as they go about those things.

Third, what’s the point of joining the Church if you’re only going to follow part of what it teaches?

 

[Raxus]

I’ve never understood this. It’s the difference in believing things to be true and accepting them as being true.

Faithful Catholics accept some things being true as an exercise in faith, as well as logic. If you’re an atheist, it’s not going to make much personal sense to you, but the logic is still there as to why a faithful Catholic would accept teachings that they have a hard time believing personally.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

That sounds like a problem with atheism’s lack of a cohesive worldview, not the idea of worldviews in general.

Is a unified worldview that is prescribed for us needed?

I have a Catholic worldview. There is only one Catholic worldview; if you pick and choose pieces of it, you don’t have a Catholic worldview, you have a Frankensteined worldview instead, made up of a mix of Catholic and other things that is not the same as a Catholic worldview

Then most people have a Frankensteined worldview, including many proclaiming a Catholic (or their denomination’s) worldview.

I don’t see it as practical to expect a large group to all agree on numerous beliefs of that nature. As such, a predefined worldview seems like an approximation for discussion but not accurate wrt an individual.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

If you’re an atheist, it’s not going to make much personal sense to you, but the logic is still there as to why a faithful Catholic would accept teachings that they have a hard time believing personally.

Ok. I’ll accept this.
IOW it’s a bridge too far for me, but a matter of faith for you.

 

[Freddy]

Third, what’s the point of joining the Church if you’re only going to follow part of what it teaches?

If you’re going to join then sure. You need to follow the rules. Just as Garret said he would. But he would then be, in my humble opinion, acting hypocritically in supporting policies in which he did not believe. He should have stood as an independant (which, incidently, might then have helped my son-in-law who stood against him get a few more votes - it didn’t end well…).

 

[Raxus]

Is a unified worldview that is prescribed for us needed?

I would say yes, though it’s never going to be forced. I daresay a lot of things would be better if everyone had a unified Catholic worldview.

Then most people have a Frankensteined worldview, including many proclaiming a Catholic (or their denomination’s) worldview.

Agreed. People can call a hamburger a taco, but it’s still a hamburger; in the same way, if they pick and choose what it means to be Catholic, they’re not seeing the world as such, as much as they might want to believe they are.

I don’t see it as practical to expect a large group to all agree on numerous beliefs of that nature. As such, a predefined worldview seems like an approximation for discussion but not accurate wrt an individual.

I think it could be practical, but God allows people their free will so that love can be genuine (among other reasons). Still, a Catholic worldview is a Catholic worldview. I can’t speak for others, but I can certainly speak for mine.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’ve never understood this. It’s the difference in believing things to be true and accepting them as being true.

Faithful Catholics accept some things being true as an exercise in faith, as well as logic. If you’re an atheist, it’s not going to make much personal sense to you, but the logic is still there as to why a faithful Catholic would accept teachings that they have a hard time believing personally.

Well, you’re right there, Raxus. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Raxus]

Ok. I’ll accept this.
IOW it’s a bridge too far for me, but a matter of faith for you.

I guess so. I think anyone can reach that bridge, with time and will, but it’s certainly not an instantaneous leap from “I can’t buy that” to “HALLELUJIA!”, at least for most. “Faith the size of a mustard seed”, and all that.

 

[Raxus]

Well, you’re right there, Raxus. It makes no sense to me.

I don’t think it has to. If you ever want to move closer to it making sense, God will meet you where you are and walk you toward it, holding your hand. If you don’t, then you don’t. Certainly doesn’t make you any lesser of a person than I, or less loved by either God or myself.