Philosophy Now Forum

For those so inclined...

http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress ... /arg4long/

A blog which lays out a set of arguments; considering Christian apologetics from an atheist's perspective.

4. Atheism is Not a “Worldview,” and Presuppositionalism is Incoherent

This post is my ongoing set of arguments answering objections to my Summary Case for Atheism, in which some Christians argue that it is reasonable to believe that non-material things exist. In many cases, this argument is extended to include the claim that atheists subscribe to a “worldview” that arbitrarily excludes the supernatural. This general argument is also extended into a subspecies of presuppositionalist arguments that are designed to show that atheism is internally inconsistent.

I contend that a) atheism isn’t a worldview, b) that my arguments survive the shared worldview both of the atheist and the theist, and c) presuppositionalism is incoherent and thus no argument for theism...

Defining "world-view" might prove difficult, if not impossible. It's such an inclusive sort of word.

Suppose I settle for saying that my own view of the world does exclude the supernatural. Then I would need to define what I mean by natural, unnatural, preternatural and supernatural. That would leave me free to include dryads in the natural category and a god or gods perhaps in the preternatural, while rejecting poltergeists as supernatural, without losing consistency.

Or, I could be unequally skeptical about claims of insubstantial entities and accord a different degree of probability to each one; decide what kind and amount of proof I require in order to believe any particular claim. Thus, I might accept the existence of angels from a single eye-witness account, but reject quarks as ridiculous unless I was shown a captive quark; accept that God is Great, because I read it in both a fat black book and a fancy red book, but disbelieve that Muhammad is his prophet and that Jesus is his son, because on this issue, the books contradict each other.

I can make my world-view internally consistent by creating the specific rules that it conforms to.
Atheism happens to be part of, consistent and congruent with, my world-view. It certainly isn't the whole shebang and doesn't explain everything about me or my thought-processes.
I don't know what Presuppositionalism is or says, so I can't comment.

As Skip says, it is difficult to define worldview. It is also difficult to define atheism in a way that won't raise someone's hackles. But I think atheism probably is a worldview if you take it to mean something like 'There is a alternative, better, explanation for any given phenomenon than that god did it'. I think that is probably true, but it doesn't therefore follow that some god or other didn't do it. For those lucky enough to be able to enjoy it, life, the universe and everything is fabulous thing. Some people want to know more about it, others want to find someone to thank. The mad thing is, they very often think we should feel bad about the best bits, sex 'n' drugs 'n' rock 'n' roll.

Right on, bro!

I contend that a) atheism isn’t a worldview, b) that my arguments survive the shared worldview both of the atheist and the theist,

This is a two-sentence self-contradiction, it would seem. Essentially, it says "Atheism isn't a worldview...but...the shared worldview of the atheist..." All I can make of this is to think he's saying that atheism *isn't* a worldview, but atheism *has* a worldview, or somehow *participates* in a worldview, one shared with Theism, according to him ???? I'm not sure I understand that position. He'd need to reword.

What he's got, if one reads the actual article, is a "Wiki" definition of "worldview," plus a few thoughts he premises on one school of apologetics (among the many available), Presuppositionalism.

Yet if one reads the whole article, one also discovers a significant fallacy. He thinks the following statement sufficiently fundamental to his argument that he bolds it and adds an exclamation point. His assumption, as he states it, is "If atheism does not provide a single answer to these fundamental questions, it cannot be a worldview, by definition!" The assumption he's making, then, has to be that no ideology that admits a range of answers could possibly be a worldview. That looks odd: it would then be hard to say that *anything* was a worldview -- even, say, Christianity, which sustains quite a range of debate over these issues. And if that assumption were true, would mean he was arguing about nothing, since there would then be no such thing as any "worldviews." If that were the point he was trying to make, he could make it much more simply by saying, "There's no such thing as a worldview, according to me."

I guess the rightness of his answer depends on what he's taking "worldview" to mean. It's certainly a much-discussed term, even in Christian circles, though I don't think it's nearly as complicated as much of that sort of discussion might lead one to believe. I think it is at least potentially a useful sort of concept: but unless one hashes out in advance which definition of "worldview" one wishes to sustain, and unless that definition is better than the one he's using, it's impossible to make much progress on the debate.

I find that most people who make blanket statements about "atheists" as a class, or "atheism" as an ideology are talking about nothing: their premise is generally based on a misconception.

They can't seem to accept that it simply means: I do not believe stories about gods. Beyond that, we can have any number of different ideas, convictions, habits of thought, professions and preferences from one another.

Skip wrote:I find that most people who make blanket statements about "atheists" as a class, or "atheism" as an ideology are talking about nothing: their premise is generally based on a misconception.

They can't seem to accept that it simply means: I do not believe stories about gods. Beyond that, we can have any number of different ideas, convictions, habits of thought, professions and preferences from one another.

The same could be said of religions and those who feel they need to comment on them without understanding them. All religions are not the same and all believers do not believe the same things, but there are some who will boldly declare what all believers and religions believe.

They can't seem to accept that it simply means: I do not believe stories about gods.

Skip:

This seems true enough, to me. But it also raises a question:

If Atheism is nothing but the negation of an affirmative belief, does Atheism have anything in it to commend itself to us as a belief system?

Is it just a negative, a refusal to believe, or does it involve any positive claims?

Immanuel Can wrote:

They can't seem to accept that it simply means: I do not believe stories about gods.

Skip:

This seems true enough, to me. But it also raises a question:

If Atheism is nothing but the negation of an affirmative belief, does Atheism have anything in it to commend itself to us as a belief system?

Is it just a negative, a refusal to believe, or does it involve any positive claims?

Does it matter if atheism has any 'positive' claims to make or not? It is simply the refusal to believe in a supernatural entity. End of story. How come this is never enough for theists?

Besides, many atheists do make 'positive' claims: that the world came into being through chemical interactions; that life has evolved from this primitive chemistry into more complex forms. Is this positive enough or does it not conform to a theist's definition of positive?

Immanuel Can wrote:If Atheism is nothing but the negation of an affirmative belief, does Atheism have anything in it to commend itself to us as a belief system?

Is it just a negative, a refusal to believe, or does it involve any positive claims?

aiddon wrote:Does it matter if atheism has any 'positive' claims to make or not? It is simply the refusal to believe in a supernatural entity.

Is it fair to call atheism 'a refusal to believe'? Doesn't that put it in the same bracket as refusing to eat your greens? There are any number of ways to answer the question, 'Do you believe in god(s)?', but they all fall within the general boundaries of Yes, No, Don't know. Somebody saying 'No.' is a fairly reliable indicator of atheism, but it is not, therefore, a wilful rejection of evidence; it 's just not being persuaded by stuff that some people happen to find compelling.

thedoc wrote:All religions are not the same and all believers do not believe the same things, but there are some who will boldly declare what all believers and religions believe.

It's hardly bold, but I think it can be said that all believers and religions believe that at least one god exists.

Does it matter if atheism has any 'positive' claims to make or not? It is simply the refusal to believe in a supernatural entity. End of story. How come this is never enough for theists?

Oh, believe me...that's enough for me...because if it's true, then in means that Atheism is just a negation, and not a worldview.

Of course, as a mere negation, it doesn't amount to much at all: simply "I don't believe." Okay, fine. But that puts absolutely no responsibility on anyone to agree, and it doesn't even rule out the possibility that someone *knows* otherwise. So it's very weak, even when stridently worded. It does no work in questions of origins, ontology, phenomena, science, ethics...in fact, that's what the article at the head of this strand insists: that "Atheists" can believe all sorts of things.

Would that all Atheists were so modest and ineffectual.

Besides, many atheists do make 'positive' claims: that the world came into being through chemical interactions; that life has evolved from this primitive chemistry into more complex forms. Is this positive enough or does it not conform to a theist's definition of positive?

Ah. So on the other hand, you're saying that Atheism has to be backed by Materialist or Naturalist claims about things like origins, destiny, phenomena, ontology, and so on? If so, that makes it a much more impressive, or at least more ambitious. But it does so at the cost of falsifying the article at the header of this strand, and also your claim above, since it essentially makes Atheism into a worldview. It turns out to be about more than mere disbelief, and instead makes all sorts of worldview claims.

So I must ask which is it? Is Atheism a minimal claim to "not knowing," (which makes it a slender target but also rather extremely slender in importance as well), or is it a maximal set of commitments in areas like ontology, origins, science, etc. (by which point it appears to possess all that's needed to call it a worldview)?

uwot wrote: It's hardly bold, but I think it can be said that all believers and religions believe that at least one god exists.

Buddhism is often called a Religion, (I don't 100% agree) but many, including Buddhists refer to it as a religion, and nowhere in the Buddhist tradition is there a reference to God or a God.

There may be others, but I am not familiar with all religions.

Immanuel Can wrote: Oh, believe me...that's enough for me...because if it's true, then in means that Atheism is just a negation, and not a worldview.

Of course, as a mere negation, it doesn't amount to much at all: simply "I don't believe." Okay, fine. But that puts absolutely no responsibility on anyone to agree, and it doesn't even rule out the possibility that someone *knows* otherwise.

Would that all Atheists were so modest and ineffectual.

Ah. So on the other hand, you're saying that Atheism has to be backed by Materialist or Naturalist claims about things like origins, destiny, phenomena, ontology, and so on? If so, that makes it a much more impressive, or at least more ambitious. But it does so at the cost of falsifying the article at the header of this strand, and also your claim above, since it essentially makes Atheism into a worldview. It turns out to be about more than mere disbelief, and instead makes all sorts of worldview claims.

Yes, strictly speaking atheism is not a world view, but merely a lack of belief. In the same way one can argue that theism is not a world view either - simply a belief in a supernatural being or beings. The theist still has a responsibility to say how this constitutes a world view, i.e. how the world came into being, why suffering is allowed to happen, how exactly does a god instill morality. An atheist has explanations for these phenomena, the theist doesn't - so which one can claim a world view?

Immanuel Can wrote: So it's very weak, even when stridently worded. It does no work in questions of origins, ontology, phenomena, science, ethics...in fact, that's what the article at the head of this strand insists: that "Atheists" can believe all sorts of things.

I think it is self-evident that it is in fact theists that have demonstrated that they believe in all sorts of things - you don't have to go much further than Hinduism for that.

Immanuel Can wrote: So I must ask which is it? Is Atheism a minimal claim to "not knowing," (which makes it a slender target but also rather extremely slender in importance as well), or is it a maximal set of commitments in areas like ontology, origins, science, etc. (by which point it appears to possess all that's needed to call it a worldview)?

Though atheism is defined as lack of belief in a god, this is definition by the Oxford English Dictionary. Most atheists go further than simply 'not knowing' (which is in fact, agnosticism, and not atheism) and actually profess a certain world view - as I've already mentioned, evolution as an explanation for life. There are elements of that world view that atheists argue over - the big bang theory / multiverse, string theory etc. But these are just minor squabbles about first cause. Besides, atheists aren't an aligned group singing off the same hymn sheet, as it were. They sure as hell pale in comparison to what theists argue about - as 2000 years of blowing each other to crap testifies.

Immanuel Can wrote:Of course, as a mere negation, it doesn't amount to much at all: simply "I don't believe." Okay, fine. But that puts absolutely no responsibility on anyone to agree, and it doesn't even rule out the possibility that someone *knows* otherwise. So it's very weak, even when stridently worded.

A lot of religion is very stridently worded. What's more, there are plenty theists who insist they 'know', demanding that others have a responsibility to agree and some are happy to use violence against people who don't.

Immanuel Can wrote:It does no work in questions of origins, ontology, phenomena, science, ethics...in fact, that's what the article at the head of this strand insists: that "Atheists" can believe all sorts of things.

I'm getting deja vu. Skip has said, aiddon has said and I have said that atheism only commits somebody to not believing in gods. Beyond that, as you say:""Atheists" can believe all sorts of things." As I suggested, one way to characterise atheism is as the belief that there is an explanation other than god; one that will require work to discover. In that sense it can be considered a worldview, but it is in fact theism that does no work, 'God done it.' requires no effort.

Immanuel Can wrote:Would that all Atheists were so modest and ineffectual.

As opposed to immodest and ineffectual.

aiddon wrote: Yes, strictly speaking atheism is not a world view, but merely a lack of belief. In the same way one can argue that theism is not a world view either - simply a belief in a supernatural being or beings. The theist still has a responsibility to say how this constitutes a world view, i.e. how the world came into being, why suffering is allowed to happen, how exactly does a god instill morality. An atheist has explanations for these phenomena, the theist doesn't - so which one can claim a world view?

No, all Theism's, that I am familiar with, have an elaborate Mythology that accounts for all the things you refer to. Most Atheists, that I am aware of, reject God and the Mythology associated with God. Atheists have substituted scientific knowledge for Mythological explanations of the world and it's origins.