Topic: Atheism
Atheism is not a worldview There is some confusion about an "atheist worldview"by R.K. Chase
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
There is a common assumption that atheism can be classified as a "worldview" or "intellectual paradigm." This is an inaccurate assumption.
Atheism is a conclusion about ultimate reality derived from a "worldview" or "intellectual paradigm." For instance, a naturalist, who views ultimate reality through a supernatural filter, would consider herself an atheist as well as an a-fairyist and an a-ghostist. This person would not base any conclusions about reality on anything supernatural, be it god or miracles.
However, a theist who believes that a supernatural power can influence ultimate reality (through prayer, divine intervention, demons, etc.) by definition has to accept a religious world view. This means that the primary causal force behind an action or event is not limited by an ultimate reality that is grounded in physics or any other natural principles. When Jesus allegedly walked on water, he defied the laws of physics, something a person with a naturalist worldview would challenge logically and intellectually, but a religious person must consider that in this particular instance supernatural godly powers were invoked.
Now there are religions such as Buddhism and Taoism that also adopt a naturalist world view and explain religious experience within a definable universe. But Judeo-Christian religions, by definition rely on a supernatural entity for eternal salvation, creation and "miracles."
Albert Einstein, an atheist, said about his worldview, "There are two ways to live: you can live as though nothing is a miracle, or you can live as though everything is a miracle." As humans, even with inspiration from holy text, it is problematic for us to make the distinctions between what is a miracle and what is explainable in a definable ultimate reality. By believing in things such as miracles, divinely answered prayers and non-physical souls, theists reveal a fundamental problem with a religious world view: anything is possible. The ultimate goal of a person with a (Judeo-Christian) religious worldview is to achieve salvation, a purely non-physical objective where somehow the conscious self we have developed in a physical brain, leaves the physical world as an eternal non-physical soul. So in accepting the most basic premise of religion, ultimate reality, for the religious person, is necessarily supernatural and unrestricted.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 15 thumbs so far
2008 R.K. Chase, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of R.K. Chase only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. R.K. Chase is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You know what I love about athiests? The fact that when they look at everyone else as deluded, crazy, or stupid, it's supposed to be okay, but when others criticize them somehow it's persecution.
Considering we don't understand all of the laws of physics, that we are constantly expanding our viewpoint and understanding of science, to proclaim that narrowly deciding nothing can ever be real that we can't explain with today's knowledge is supernatural -- and then not calling that a world view -- is purest sophistry.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-06 13:37:41
"You know what I love about athiests? The fact that when they look at everyone else as deluded, crazy, or stupid, it's supposed to be okay, but when others criticize them somehow it's persecution. "
Actually, most athiest encourage the debate, because it is a debate that they can't lose. As long as common sense and evidence is a criteria for these discussions, the idea that a book, any silly book, contains the dictation of a supernatural "creator" just falls apart.
"I believe it to be so, therefore it is so" is used by all religions to uphold their beliefs, which, if honestly assessed, demonstrates both an arrogance and an ignorance that borders on megalomania.
You can't criticize a "lack of belief", because there is nothing there to criticize...
Posted By: an existentialist
Date: 2008-02-06 14:12:28
"You can't criticize a "lack of belief", because there is nothing there to criticize..."
Certainly you can. If I didn't believe in China, you could certainly criticize my lack of belief in China. And this is coming from an self-avowed atheist, so don't think I'm some Christian trying to defend Christianity. I just think if atheists were a little more honest, they could make a lot more progress.
Atheist carries with itself a stigma. It is very unfortunate really because the majority of Atheists that I have met are some of the more intelligent people that I have met. I give more respect to an Atheist for their views than any of the devout evangelical Christians out there who believe, just because they are told to, or because that is what they learned.
Atheists are Atheists, because they have thought for themselves and offered themselves information from outside sources other than the aproved doctrine. Many Atheists try their hand at all religions before coming to the conclusion that all religions are in essence bad for humanity. If you look at the human instinct of greed and power, you see where religion can go wrong. History always shows that religion and money go hand in hand. As well as money and war, religion and war. The followers are not the problem in religion. The problem lies at the top.
Also, if you look into the enormous amounts of information, the laws of physics and nature, etc. it becomes increasingly harder to simply believe in a guy sitting on a cloud, pointing his finger and saying, "That guy just robbed somebody, I'll let him live to be 98, then he's all yours Satan."
Another thing that Einstein said about God was, "No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds ." - From The Private Albert Einstein by Peter A. Bucky with Allen G. Weakland, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992, pp 85-87. This book contains the record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period. http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einbucky.htm
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-06 14:49:30
"Certainly you can. If I didn't believe in China, you could certainly criticize my lack of belief in China".
Actually, no. You CAN criticize someone for not believing in China because we HAVE AMPLE EVIDENCE China exists. There is ZERO evidence that a creator exists. All we have is the wish instinct. "I wish it were so, therefore, I make it so..."
Wishing something to exist is not the same thing as knowing China exists...
Making the China-ignorant person ignorant and the athiest, simply a person without the need for wish fulfillment...
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-02-06 15:44:35
Walt, actually, when Evangelicals became a political force in this country, the spill over was complete. You cannot talk about politics without having a religious discourse. When people like Ted Haggart had the ear of the current president right up until his outing as a freak and a liar, and when people like Pat Robertson move freely in and out of the White House giving advice to sitting presidents and past presidents, you must agree that politics has been invaded by religion.
It is indeed an unfortunate occurence and one that moves rational people into the religious debate, as more and more irrational discourse bleeds into the public (and political) conversation.
When Mike Huckabee, for example, asks for more biblical influence in our Constitution, then we rational and sane folk tend to get uneasy, pointing out that "god" does not, nor has not, given his backing to ANY political belief, whether he exists or not (which there is no evidence of, either way). In other words, religionists are using their religion as a tool in politics, and we anti-religionist have a right to request that people behave rationally and logically when it comes to things that affect us like governance.
Posted By: Nigel Harrison
Date: 2008-02-08 16:05:48
"Posted By: A. J. Fabio Date: 2008-02-06 14:26:03
Also, if you look into the enormous amounts of information, the laws of physics and nature, etc. it becomes increasingly harder to simply believe in a guy sitting on a cloud, pointing his finger and saying, "That guy just robbed somebody, I'll let him live to be 98, then he's all yours Satan."
Of course it is hard to believe in the character you represent. But that isn't even close to the Christian position. This sort of disingenuous argument/debate is one of the reasons this country is a mess. It occurs not just in theism V atheism, but political, race and class debates, and yes from both sides of the fence.
"The fact that when they look at everyone else as deluded, crazy, or stupid, it's supposed to be okay"
Maybe. But we don't think you deserve to be burned and tortured for all eternity because of what you believe. I think that gives atheists the moral highground.
"Atheists are Atheists, because they have thought for themselves and offered themselves information from outside sources other than the aproved doctrine. Many Atheists try their hand at all religions before coming to the conclusion that all religions are in essence bad for humanity."
Are we talking about theism vs. atheism, or are we talking about religion vs. irreligion? They are NOT the same thing. They just overlap somewhat.
"Religion" derives from *religare*, a "binding."
"Theism" derives from *theos*, a god.
Apples and oranges are both fruits but are not identical and you could like one without liking the other.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 R.K. Chase, all rights reserved.