Worldviews?

[Darkforbid]

Secularism functions to define what "religion" looks like in a particular culture in ways that directly reflect whatever the dominant religion is in that society (and by extension, ignore or exclude expressions of religion that do not match this construct). I notice this in action routinely as someone who falls outside that dominant religious spectrum. While court cases argue about whether or not Christian-based displays of religion (e.g., Ten Commandments) on public property are acceptable, religious displays of my own tradition (e.g., trees) are not contended and considered "secular." At the end of the day, something is religious because we stuff it in a box labeled "religious." Some religion somewhere stuffs everything you can imagine in that box. It's not that different with the concept of god, which is why I remarked earlier that neither atheism or theism (you can split hairs about the suffix if you want, but the point still stands) isn't a worldview nor is a substantive label without context.

To add...



Of course it includes all god-concepts. That's the problem. If we include all god-concepts that could be referenced, gods are literally everything in the physical universe and then some. Nothing can be said about some so-called "theistic" or "atheistic" worldview when the gods literally cover the entire territory of everything. One must be specific about the type of theism and the theological perspectives we're talking about to talk about what worldview might be implied from that. Such teachings are attached to broader cultures/religions, which is why I say theism/atheism in of itself really doesn't constitute a worldview.

[

That's why I left question wide open. I you need to be spoon fed 'specific about the type of theism and the theological perspectives' how is that my problem

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Considering the variety of theism and atheist beliefs it's hard to tell.

That was the first thing that came into my mind. There are simply too many other factors that come into play with world views to make this a meaningful thread. I really only have a comment or two to make.

Logically, only the theistic worldview can incorporate meaning. However, people are not rational. Thus, atheists can sense the innate meaning of the world and incorporate it into their world view whether it gels with their atheism or not. The same could be said for morality.

That's it.

 

[Quintessence]

That's why I left question wide open. I you need to be spoon fed 'specific about the type of theism and the theological perspectives' how is that my problem

I'm not clear on what you're attempting to communicate here, but the attitude isn't appreciated. I don't know if I offended you in some way or something, but... sheesh.

 

[Darkforbid]

I'm not clear on what you're attempting to communicate here, but the attitude isn't appreciated. I don't know if I offended you in some way or something, but... sheesh.

Because it's from a Question paper from aOxford University Theological group, that hundreds of people found no problem answering. And attacking the questions structure is seen as very weak tactic

 

[Twilight Hue]

What factors differentiate theistic and atheistic worldviews?

What factors differentiate perspective within these worldviews?

This can include natural philosophy, fundamental, existential, and normative postulates, themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

View attachment 36430

Psychology as it relates to experience.

In other terms, I would think it has to do with how various experiences are interpreted.

Theism just takes those experiences one step further through interpretation.

Atheism is experience based without interpretation that stays with reality void of fabrication or embellishments.

That's how I approach it.

 

[epronovost]

Logically, only the theistic worldview can incorporate meaning.

I would say this is a completely absurd, insulting and prejudiced opinion that can hardly be demonstrated or even coroborated, but that never stopped people before.

 

[Quintessence]

Because it's from a Question paper from aOxford University Theological group, that hundreds of people found no problem answering. And attacking the questions structure is seen as very weak tactic

Where did I attack the question's structure? This was my original response:

What factors differentiate theistic and atheistic worldviews?

Atheism and theism in of themselves are not worldviews. And while any number of ill-conceived and misguided assumptions may be made about both groups - some of which we've unfortunately seen in this thread already - these two terms are meaningless without articulating what the god-concept of reference is. On the whole, the two terms are just not that useful. It is an attempt to smash a complex spectrum of human thought into an overly-simplistic binary.

Where is the attack about the question's structure?

If you think what I wrote was some sort of attack on the question, you are misunderstanding my answer to it. What can I help clarify? Alternatively, if you aren't really interested in understanding other people's responses to this topic, we can simply end this line of conversation. I don't really care either way.

 

[Darkforbid]

Where did I attack the question's structure? This was my original response:



Where is the attack about the question's structure?

If you think what I wrote was some sort of attack on the question, you are misunderstanding my answer to it. What can I help clarify? Alternatively, if you aren't really interested in understanding other people's responses to this topic, we can simply end this line of conversation. I don't really care either way.

You basically said in the first post atheistic and theistic were meaningless and that's not attacking questions structure, I don't know what is

To paint the point atheistic and theistic worldviews keep this site running fine

 

[Valjean]

That certainly seems a pretty good description of atheism to me.

What?! How do you see atheism in this? These are traits more associated with religiosity.
Please explain your reasoning.

 

[Valjean]

Logically, only the theistic worldview can incorporate meaning. However, people are not rational. Thus, atheists can sense the innate meaning of the world and incorporate it into their world view whether it gels with their atheism or not. The same could be said for morality.

"The theistic world view?" What's that?
Atheists can sense the meaning of the world? What meaning is that? What evidence is there for a "innate" meaning?
The theists, who "incorporate meaning," don't seem to incorporate any consistent meaning.
And what are you saying about morality? I'm not following your meaning.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What?! How do you see atheism in this? These are traits more associated with religiosity.
Please explain your reasoning.

Actually they are the traits of someone who is a very very poor thinker, not to bright, very irrational. Such a person could be either a theist or an atheist. Being dumb isn't limited to a single opinion.

 

[blü 2]

something is religious because we stuff it in a box labeled "religious."

I'd be inclined to stuff it in a box labeled "supernatural". (I know eg at least one branch of secular Western Buddhism that teaches morality as wisdom without supernatural influences, but that would incline me to say it was not essentially a religion at all.) 'Supernatural' literally means above (=outside) nature. Nature is the same thing as the world external to the self, the sum of all things with objective existence, the realm of the physical sciences &c, so the supernatural is by definition not real, hence can only be imaginary (ie conceptual with no real counterpart).

Nothing can be said about some so-called "theistic" or "atheistic" worldview when the gods literally cover the entire territory of everything. One must be specific about the type of theism and the theological perspectives we're talking about to talk about what worldview might be implied from that. Such teachings are attached to broader cultures/religions, which is why I say theism/atheism in of itself really doesn't constitute a worldview.

I'd maintain the view that natural /supernatural was often a meaningful and relevant distinction.

 

[Quintessence]

You basically said in the first post atheistic and theistic were meaningless and that's not attacking questions structure, I don't know what is

To paint the point atheistic and theistic worldviews keep this site running fine

Thanks for clarifying!

It's important to read that entire paragraph in context. What I actually say there is that the terms "atheist" and "theist" are meaningless without further clarification on what "god" means, which I elaborated on in another post. The main reason why it doesn't make sense to speak of "atheistic" and "theistic" worldviews is because conceptions of god vary so much between peoples and cultures. Different conceptions of god have very different implications when present in a cultural worldview. Some specific "theistic worldviews" (if they can be called that) are functionally indistinguishable from specific "atheistic worldviews." As such, I'm not intending to "attack" the question by pointing out this problem - I genuinely believe little to nothing can be said about "atheistic worldviews" and "theistic worldviews" without further clarifying what theism and what atheism we are talking about. I also think this is very important to remember. I get sick and tired of folks making assumptions about people based on labels that don't mean much without further elaboration. There was a tongue-in-cheek commentary about that in my original response too.

 

[Darkforbid]

Thanks for clarifying!

It's important to read that entire paragraph in context. What I actually say there is that the terms "atheist" and "theist" are meaningless without further clarification on what "god" means, which I elaborated on in another post. The main reason why it doesn't make sense to speak of "atheistic" and "theistic" worldviews is because conceptions of god vary so much between peoples and cultures. Different conceptions of god have very different implications when present in a cultural worldview. Some specific "theistic worldviews" (if they can be called that) are functionally indistinguishable from specific "atheistic worldviews." As such, I'm not intending to "attack" the question by pointing out this problem - I genuinely believe little to nothing can be said about "atheistic worldviews" and "theistic worldviews" without further clarifying what theism and what atheism we are talking about. I also think this is very important to remember. I get sick and tired of folks making assumptions about people based on labels that don't mean much without further elaboration. There was a tongue-in-cheek commentary about that in my original response too.

Really!

If I walked into a lecture took the stage and asked "All theist put your hand" followed by "All atheists put your had up" are you contending no one would put their hand up! Because I hadn't defined God sufficiently.

 

[Quintessence]

Really!

If I walked into a lecture took the stage and asked "All theist put your hand" followed by "All atheists put your had up" are you contending no one would put their hand up! Because I hadn't defined God sufficiently.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I see you are not interested in having a productive discussion and instead just wish to be argumentative. I'm afraid I'm not interested in that kind of conversation. I'm not that bored.

 

[Quintessence]

I'd be inclined to stuff it in a box labeled "supernatural". (I know eg at least one branch of secular Western Buddhism that teaches morality as wisdom without supernatural influences, but that would incline me to say it was not essentially a religion at all.) 'Supernatural' literally means above (=outside) nature. Nature is the same thing as the world external to the self, the sum of all things with objective existence, the realm of the physical sciences &c, so the supernatural is by definition not real, hence can only be imaginary (ie conceptual with no real counterpart).

I'd maintain the view that natural /supernatural was often a meaningful and relevant distinction.

That's an interesting take on it. Personally, I find the word "supernatural" problematic and part of that is because I come from a religious tradition for whom "supernatural" is a very poor if not outright inaccurate description of the gods (and mine is not the only tradition that is like this). That is to say, the dichotomy is meaningful to some but not to others. Adding in the whole "is it real" brings in a whole new spectrum of philosophical conundrums too, as defining what is and isn't real gets... complicated. I guess on the whole I am not a fan of overly-simplistic dichotomies or labels for complex cultural phenomena. It has its uses, though. When there's a common cultural understanding of those dichotomies, it can be a good basis for discussion. The trouble starts when you bring in more cultural diversity that challenges the assumptions of those dichotomies because it doesn't really apply to their culture. I exist in that cultural space when it comes to religion, so naturally I'm going to balk at some of these dichotomies a bit more than most folks will.

 

[Darkforbid]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I see you are not interested in having a productive discussion and instead just wish to be argumentative. I'm afraid I'm not interested in that kind of conversation. I'm not that bored.

Same here, buddy! I'm really not interested in page after page of why you personally can't answer the OP or just define the specific group you mean if you feel it needs doing,.. Especially in a fully open we question.

 

[Quintessence]

Same here, buddy! I'm really not interested in page after page of why you personally can't answer the OP or just define the specific group you mean if you feel it needs doing,.. Especially in a fully open we question.

That you didn't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't provide one. There really was no need to get so argumentative about this.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

What?! How do you see atheism in this? These are traits more associated with religiosity.
Please explain your reasoning.

Well, the magical thinking (whatever that might be) is not atheistic, but atheists reject the evidence of religious experiences (ignorance of the facts), usually on a priori grounds (faulty methodology and logic)

 

[Darkforbid]

Well, the magical thinking (whatever that might be) is not atheistic, but atheists reject the evidence of religious experiences (ignorance of the facts), usually on a priori grounds (faulty methodology and logic)

It's the belief you can affect thinks by thought alone. You don't really need to believe in God to think that, so I suppose there could be quite a few atheists who think it's possible