Worldview

[Eudaimonist]

But doesn't your atheism significantly inform your views on #2 and #3?

No. It hardly says anything at all.

At most, it says that my personal philosophy isn't theistic. But that isn't saying much.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I like that. One might as well say that one's metaphysics is a basic part of one's worldview. Yes, that sounds about right.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Yeah, metaphysics is probably the easiest word to use for what I meant.

As I have understood humanism, it seems like they go out of their way to say that they're atheistic.

Probably because it is important in current culture. One aspect of humanism could be seen as being moral without God. If theism were less influential then humanism wouldn't need to reference God so much.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If humanists simply dealt with how man relates to man and how man relates to the world without saying anything about metaphysics, could it accurately be called a full worldview?

No, it would have to say something about metaphysics.

Edited to add: But it would still be a worldview. It would simply be missing a piece.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Stoneghost]

Where did he make these arguments, I can find no reference. The three relationships desribed sound like Greek narrative types: man vs. nature, man vs. himself, man vs. God/s. But in the context you're describing them the differentiations don't make any sense. Why are number one and three different? One and three could be posited together as what is mans relationship with creation/the universe. What does number two refer to? Does it mean mans relationship with himself (individually), or with other people, or with the concept of humanity? If it means anyone other than mans relationship with himself it could again be combining with what is mans relationship with creation.

And no atheism does not inform a worldview. It could to be sure. And atheistic belief may mean you are more likely to adopt certain information into your worldview such as rationalism. But by itself there is no direct relationship between atheism, or theism for that matter, and a world view.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The only thing that atheism does is claim how man relates to God -- namely that he doesn't. You're right, though. Atheism alone does not tell us how man relates to man or to the world. Perhaps this means it's not a worldview in the fullest sense. This is not to demean anyone who is an atheist.

I don't think atheism is a worldview at all, neither is theism. Both are just ideas that can occupy a particular position within a worldview, but neither is a worldview in and of itself. I think this is intuitively obvious. When someone says that they are a theist, all you can infer from that statement is that they believe in the existence of at least one deity. You don't know which deity. You don't what they believe that deity commands. You don't know what they believe about where humanity stands in relation to that deity. You know nothing, in other words, about their worldview by knowing that they believe in a God. Some people like to assume that they can immediately intuit what kind of person they are dealing with just by asking that person whether they believe in God. I think that is ridiculously naive.

 

[Ken-1122]

Abraham Kuyper helped to coin the term "worldview". According to him, any worldview must deal with three relations:

1) How man relates to God
2) How man relates to man
3) How man relates to the world

In his estimation #1 is the foundation that #2 and #3 are built upon. I think he makes a compelling case that anything less than this is not a worldview.

What do you think?

I think Kuyper was refering to what his worldview is based upon. I believe a person's world view is based upon how he relates to the world. How a person relates to God or fellow humans is no more necessary for a world view than how a person relates to nature, animals, or anything else; each person decides what is important in their world view IMO

Ken

 

[Gadarene]

Abraham Kuyper helped to coin the term "worldview". According to him, any worldview must deal with three relations:

1) How man relates to God
2) How man relates to man
3) How man relates to the world

In his estimation #1 is the foundation that #2 and #3 are built upon. I think he makes a compelling case that anything less than this is not a worldview.

What do you think?

Assertion 1 is wholly unnecessary to anyone who has rejected theism utterly. It is only there because theism has saturated our history, i.e. because it is normative, not because it is necessary.

Put more pithily - we can be far more sure that man and the world exists than God exists, in fact there is no good evidence for god either.

 

[brightlights]

Where did he make these arguments, I can find no reference.

You can find his complete discussion on this in http://www.amazon.com/Lectures-Calvinism-Abraham-Kuyper/dp/080281607X.

The three relationships desribed sound like Greek narrative types: man vs. nature, man vs. himself, man vs. God/s. But in the context you're describing them the differentiations don't make any sense. Why are number one and three different? One and three could be posited together as what is mans relationship with creation/the universe. What does number two refer to? Does it mean mans relationship with himself (individually), or with other people, or with the concept of humanity? If it means anyone other than mans relationship with himself it could again be combining with what is mans relationship with creation.

Number one refers to how man relates to God. This deals with questions about God's existence, what kind of god/s exist, and how humans relate to said beings if they relate at all. This question has to do with religion or lack thereof.

Number two refers to how humans relate to each other. Are human beings equal? Is there a caste or class system? Are some born to be slaves and others born to rule? How do men and women relate to each other? This question has to do with ethics and politics.

Number three refers to how man relates to the rest of the world. Does man have dominion over nature? In what way is he a part of nature? This question has to do with science, art, work, etc...

 

[quatona]

Abraham Kuyper helped to coin the term "worldview". According to him, any worldview must deal with three relations:

1) How man relates to God

I understand that for everyone whose worldview includes a certain god concept this part is essential for their worldview . For the others, not at all.

For an atheist, the question - in order to become meaningful - would read: "How does man relate to theists?", and thus be part of #2.

----

On another note: Quite obviously the "world" in "worldview" and the "world" in #3 do not carry the same meaning (or else #3 would be sufficient). That´s odd.

 

[brightlights]

To address multiple posters at once, I contend that no worldview is ambivalent about God. For theistic worldviews, their theism is central and foundational for everything else they believe. For atheistic worldviews, their atheism is central and foundational. In other words, the existence or the non-existence of God is of primary importance to human beings. It's relevant to every other belief that we hold. It's why all of us post on this forum.

Why do you post here if the God question does not interest you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

For atheistic worldviews, their atheism is central and foundational.

Actually, no. My atheism is merely a footnote to my worldview. It is neither central nor foundational.

Why do you post here if the God question does not interest you?

It interests me, but in a political/cultural way, not as something central to my worldview.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To address multiple posters at once, I contend that no worldview is ambivalent about God. For theistic worldviews, their theism is central and foundational for everything else they believe. For atheistic worldviews, their atheism is central and foundational.

Given that atheism is a minor part of any given atheist's worldview, your claim seems false. An 'atheistic worldview' would be one which relies upon the presupposition that one isn't making a claim regarding God - and since I (nor any atheist I know) makes a worldview from this, you're hard-pressed to call it an 'atheistic worldview'.

In other words, there are theistic worldviews, atheistic worldviews, and all the rest.

In other words, the existence or the non-existence of God is of primary importance to human beings. It's relevant to every other belief that we hold.

I believe in the chemical theory of atoms. That is a belief of mine. If you believe that my beliefs (or non-beliefs) in deities is relevant to that theory, please, elucidate.

It's why all of us post on this forum.

Speak for yourself

Why do you post here if the God question does not interest you?

I can't answer for anyone else, but I came here to see why people believed differently to me, be it religious, philosophical, scientific, or political.

There are many discussions that go on here, and even if it only focussed on Christianity (and they don't), there's enough variation there to cover most basis from the far left to the far right.

 

[quatona]

To address multiple posters at once, I contend that no worldview is ambivalent about God. For theistic worldviews, their theism is central and foundational for everything else they believe. For atheistic worldviews, their atheism is central and foundational. In other words, the existence or the non-existence of God is of primary importance to human beings. It's relevant to every other belief that we hold. It's why all of us post on this forum.

I don´t feel like this addresses my post. Rather, I feel like it ignores my post.
Stuff that I don´t even believe exists can´t be foundational to my worldview. That´s nonsense, or better: It´s a projection on your part.
Were it not for the fact that theism is a widespread phenomenon in my society my lack of belief in god concepts would be of no relevance whatsoever.
I am not assuming that the gods you don´t believe in are foundational to your worldview.

Why do you post here if the God question does not interest you?

I post in the philosophy forum because I´m interested in philosophy, and I post in the E&M forum because E&M interests me.

 

[KCfromNC]

To address multiple posters at once, I contend that no worldview is ambivalent about God.

Mine is, at least until someone can give a reason why I should care about whether or not there are gods and what they happen to be up to or not.

Sounds like another case of a believer not being able to comprehend that everyone's not identical to them.