Introduction.
You may have heard it said that “everybody has a worldview.” In recent discussions with online atheists and having viewed several videos, I have noticed that this does not seem to be the case. Some are saying that atheism is not a worldview. For example, one video that I stumbled upon was one from “The Atheist Experience” with Matt Dillahunty, was asked about the atheist worldview. Mr. Dillahunty interrupted the caller by saying that atheism is not a worldview, with the following,
There isn’t one (a worldview). Atheism isn’t a worldview. It is a position on a single issue and that is whether or not a God exists; however once you get to that point and you’re now a person who is living a life without interference from gods, you then have to begin to put together a worldview that will allow you to assess the reality you experience. And so what you’ll find is that there are quite a lot of atheists who share similar views about science and things like that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that is the case. For example Buddhists are primarily atheists, and they have a number of supernatural ideas that I reject. So I am a skeptic and that’s what drives my atheism. I am applying skepticism and critical thinking to the ‘god claim’.’ Now I apply that to others as well but skepticism and humanism are far more along the lines of my worldview than atheism. Atheism is just my take on the ‘god claim’. You can be an atheist and not support church state separation.[1]
In this posting I want to examine Dillahunty’s statement and answer the question, is atheism really a worldview? As I navigate through this question, I believe Dillahunty’s has either a misunderstanding, or is making a misrepresentation of the definition of a worldview.
So the approach I will be taking will be from the classical definition of the term worldview coming from James Sire’s book, The Universe Next Door and draw in four fundamental questions that every worldview must answer. After examining the definition and introducing the questions, I hope to give a fair assessment of Dillahunty’s worldview statement. As we walk through question, I think it will be evident that Matt is making his definition of a worldview subject to his atheism instead of having the guidelines of a worldview evaluating his atheism. So what does the term “worldview” really mean?
What is a worldview?
In any conversation with someone skeptical to Christianity, it is vitally important to define our terms. This scenario is no different being that it is important to define what we mean by a worldview. Since the popularization of the word, “worldview,” many definitions have come to the forefront, all of which hinge around one definition which I think best answers the question. I like James Sire’s definition which states the following,
“a worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions, that may be true, partially true, or false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides that foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”[2]
Gary Phillips in this book, Making Sense of Your World defines a worldview this way,
“a worldview is, first of all, an explanation and interpretation of the world, and second, an application of this view to life. In simpler terms, our worldview is a view of the world and a view for the world.”[3].
While Phillips’ definition is not as verbose as Sire’s, he is straight to the point in a worldview explaining and interpreting the world around us. His definition also points to the necessity of an life application of those explanations and interpretations.
Looking at Worldview from Four Questions
Since the definition seems a little on the technical side, let me now streamline Sire’s definition using four questions. This will assist in understanding and evaluating Matt Dillahunty’s worldview statement. These questions come from using the methodology of one of my heroes in apologetics, and whose methodology I have enjoyed studying over the years. Ravi Zacharias has four questions as part of his 3-4-5 grid for examining life’s questions within a worldview.[4]
Before I move into examining Dillahunty’s worldview statement, I had an atheist tell me that “atheism was not a worldview and that there were many worldviews consistent with atheism.” Think of that for just a moment. The only thing consistent between atheism and the other world views is these questions. Every worldview, including atheism, has an answer for these questions.
Origin: The first question is the question of origin; where do we come from? What do atheists say our origins come from? Obviously those origins from an atheistic perspective say that we came about via evolutionary processes, time + matter + chance. Contrast that to the Christian worldview that states we are a unique creation of our Creator, and created in His image and likeness.
Meaning: The second question is the question of meaning; why are we here? What do atheists say about the purpose of their existence. Over and opposed to atheism, what does are the Christian assumptions and presuppositions? Depending on where the individual atheist stands on this position, I could summarize some of different assumptions that I have heard on this question. But we will not do that here for it would create a whole other lengthy summation not warranted for this posting.
Morality: The third question is, what is right and wrong? This is the question of morality. As Christians we believe that morals are absolute and point right back to God, who is the moral lawgiver. The atheist answers this question from a relativistic framework, having no solid foundation for being moral. Can an atheist be moral and do good things? Absolutely! They just have no solid reason for living out a moral life.
Destiny: The fourth question, is the question of destiny; where does man go after this life is over? In the mind of the atheist, the end of this life leads to nothing. Once you’re dead, that’s it. The Christian worldview puts a human soul in one of two places depending on their standing before God. One is heaven for the redeemed, and the other is eternal separation from God in a place called Hell for those who have not called on God for salvation. It is the difference between a mortal soul versus the immortal soul.
Let me move now to the assessment of Matt Dillahunty’s worldview statement.
Matt Dillahunty’s “Worldview”
How does this measure up with Matt Dillahunty’s view of atheism not being a worldview? Is atheism nothing more than “a position on a single issue and that is whether or not a God exists; however once you get to that point and you’re now a person who is living a life without interference from gods, you then have to begin to put together a worldview that will allow you to assess the reality you experience?” Or is his statement what Sire would call “a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart. . . which we hold about the basic constitution of reality?
I would posit that it is the latter. What Dillahunty does is places his atheism, which is a commitment to an assumed reality that God does not exist. His commitment is to the reality of the nonexistence of the absence of a Moral Lawgiver (morality). His commitment is to an assumed reality that the purpose of life is to live and then die and cease to exist with no real significant purpose (meaning & destiny). His commitment is to an assumed reality that all that we see comes from time+matter+chance evolutionary processes and that we are nothing more than, maybe a little higher than the animals (origin).
Matthew Dillahunty places his atheism over the definition of a worldview. This tells me that he either ignores any definition of a worldview or he just refuses to understand how the definition of worldview relates to atheism being a worldview.
Alongside the lack of foundation for being moral, Dillahunty’s atheism has reason to believe in a special creation (origin). All atheism sees is Darwin’s evolutionary processes. We are living as nothing more than being higher evolved creatures, with no purpose other than to eek out a life until it ends.
Conclusion.
Again, Dillahunty does not define a worldview. Using a brute fact statement to place one’s atheism over the meaning of a worldview does not change the fact that atheism is a worldview. So with that said, atheism is a worldview, because atheism is a commitment to a set of presuppositions that God does not exist. Because of this assumption it impacts how one sees reality. Reality to the atheist is a naturalistic one. The Christian sees reality through two lenses, natural and supernatural. Because of how one views reality, whether from a theistic or an atheistic worldview, that worldview will be played out in how one lives their life, and makes their moral choices. Dillahunty would do well to look at Sire’s definition of a worldview and see that his position falls subservient to the definition, not the other way around.
Notes
[1] Clip from the “Atheist Experience #835”, consulted at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Eo4O51vqzg
[2] James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1988), 17. Even Wikipedia has a page that defines a worldview pretty well and can be found here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view.)
[3]W. Gary Phillips and William E. Brown, Making Sense of Your World (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 29.
[4] Ravi Zacharias’ recent talk at Trinity International in Deerfield on the subject of “The Gospel in the Light of New Spirituality” presented these questions and his methodology summarized (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0GtdFuP-7c). If you want to fast forward his methodology comes up around 11:45 into the video.
“His commitment is to the reality of the nonexistence of the absence of a Moral Lawgiver”. This is the equivalent of saying that my non belief in Santa Claus is a commitment to the reality of the nonexistence of the absence of a gift giver…. As I am committed to a reality where pigs don’t fly, where unicorns don’t exist, where an infinity of things don’t exist. My worldview is predicted on things I believe exist and affect the world not on those things that don’t….
Why are so many people unable to understand what an atheist is?
It’s the 21st century, for crying out loud!
The theist believes there is evidence for the existence of at least one god.
The a-theist is the opposite of the theist and does NOT believe there is evidence for the existence of a god or gods.
That’s all. It’s that easy.
It’s the same as not believing in dragons. Not believing dragons exist does not constitute a worldview in my eyes.
Theists often think an atheist spends time thinking about gods. Sorry, no.
I only think about gods when I’m forced to. For many years I never once thought about them and only now, since more people are shoving their favourite god down my throat I start reacting.
And no, the atheist does NOT have an opinion on anything other than the existence of gods. There is nothing about science, origins or anything else.
Is that so difficult to understand?
Atheism is as much a worldview as not believing that fairies and unicorns exist. If thats the case, then any rejection of any idea constitutes a worldview.
Here is a related point… Christians are atheists in regard to the god Ra, and are also atheists in regard to many other gods, such as Vishnu, Aphrodite, Quetzalcoatl, and Odin.
So for those Christians who are demonstrating confusion by thinking that atheism is a “worldview,” just ask yourself: Is your lack of belief in the existence of Aphrodite a worldview?
The answer is completely obvious.
If an ancient Egyptian were to try and explain their creator god Ra to me, I would know to Whom they were actually trying to refer.
So, no, I’m not an atheist in respect to their partially understood concepts of the One True God.
…and the humans who see the world through the lens of theism all share something in common the atheist does not.
So, the atheist worldview stands in contrast to the theistic worldview. Trying to dilute theism into an array of mutually exclusive concepts of God doesnt help your argument because in order for theism to be true, only the merest, single detail of just one instance of divinity needs to be true.
In order for atheism, on the other hand, to be true, EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of theism throughout the history of the human race must all be falsified.
Every god, all gods, every denomination, every sect, angels, the soul, the afterlife, every single veda, sutra, the Upanishads…..
…Better get cracking all you counter-apologists.
You’ve got a lot of work to do.
You’re simply not getting it. It does not matter in the least whether any Egyptian ever tried to explain anything about Ra to you at all. It does not matter in the least whether or not any Greek ever tried to explain anything about Aphrodite to you. It does not matter in the least whether or not any Aztec ever tried to explain anything about Quetzalcoatl to you. You don’t have any belief in those gods, just as you don’t have any belief in Lord Krishna, or Vishnu, or Baal, and don’t worship golden calves because you consider the very notion patently ridiculous.
All atheism means is that you don’t believe in any of those gods. Trying to pretend that all of the gods are the same such that believing in any of the gods means that you believe in all of them is merely a demonstration of the sheer incoherence of either your rhetoric or of your very belief itself.
You wrote, “In order for atheism, on the other hand, to be true, EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of theism throughout the history of the human race must all be falsified.” Again, you are completely missing the point, because – again – you fail to comprehend what “atheism” means. In order for atheism to be wrong, just one of the thousands of gods human beings have made up in their fertile religious imaginations must have some credible real world evidence produced for it.
I certainly do understand the motivation religious believers have for trying to turn this on its head and get it all backwards: Precisely because they are well aware of the fact that they cannot produce any good real world evidence to back up their belief, yet they want to make it seem perfectly acceptable and okay to just believe what they choose to believe anyway despite there not being good evidence to back it up. In other words, theists have a strong desire to do what they can to run away from their burden of proof.
Steve Greene wrote : “You’re simply not getting it. “
Communication is a two way street. Maybe you could try harder to make your case rather than hand-waving and accusing the other side of not trying hard enough to ‘get it’.
I think I have a fair understanding of atheism and what Michel Onfray calls…’atheology’.
Steve Greene wrote : “… It does not matter in the least whether any Egyptian ever tried to explain anything about Ra to you at all. It does not matter in the least whether or not any Greek ever tried to explain anything about Aphrodite to you. It does not matter in the least whether or not any Aztec ever tried to explain anything about Quetzalcoatl to you.”
Actually, I think the prevalence and persistence of theism – in so many manifestations – does matter. If the ancient Greek tries to talk to me about Zeus I am not, I repeat NOT, scratching my head wondering who the heck they mean. I am NOT an atheist in respect to everyone else’s religion or their perception of God.
Steve Greene wrote : …”You don’t have any belief in those gods, just as you don’t have any belief in Lord Krishna, or Vishnu, or Baal, and don’t worship golden calves because you consider the very notion patently ridiculous”.
The ancient Israelites went through stages of doubt about the true nature of God and many of them did intermittently worship golden calves as representative of their (mistaken) concept of an idolized god. Many of those same Israelites went on to realize that God transcends physical man-made statues and trinkets.
Steve Greene wrote : …”All atheism means is that you don’t believe in any of those gods”.
That’s what I said. Atheists are atheists in respect to every single manifestation of theism/divinity. Atheists believe there are no gods of any kind, anywhere, at any time. And, since atheists have yet to irrefutably justify their sincere faith that no gods exist – since they merely claim that no gods exist – theirs is just another form of theology.
If all religion is an expression of ones position with respect to the nature of divinity, atheism is the religion of those who think God is… invisible, impotent, irrelevant, imperceptible, incoherent, undesirable.
Steve Greene wrote : “…Trying to pretend that all of the gods are the same such that believing in any of the gods means that you believe in all of them is merely a demonstration of the sheer incoherence of either your rhetoric or of your very belief itself.”
Not once did I say all gods are the same. Hundreds/thousands of world religions are and have been partly wrong about God. In some doctrinal or theological aspects of their religion, many have been completely wrong.
But let me make myself clear. The only form of theism I think is 100% false and always has been is atheism.
In other words, I have more in common with a Hindu and a Muslim than I do with an atheist who says ALL religion is false.
Steve Greene wrote : “…In order for atheism to be wrong, just one of the thousands of gods human beings have made up in their fertile religious imaginations must have some credible real world evidence produced for it.”
Disbelieving the evidence is NOT the same as stating there is NO evidence. When the atheist says they dont find a given piece of evidence “credible” it immediately begs the question…why not? And as I’m sure you would agree, people can have myriad reasons for accepting/rejecting the persuasiveness of evidence.
Biblical theists are routinely accused of wishful thinking and imagining God’s attributes.
But why can’t the atheist equally be accused, using that same type of strawman method? “Stop Worrying -There’s Probably No God” declares the atheist billboard. Worry about God existing??? Worry that there might really be a parallel universe/multiverse called…the afterlife? Perhaps it is the ATHEIST who is inventing a no-god religion so they can live like there’s no tomorrow. (Now THAT is a worldview!)
Steve Greene wrote : “…In other words, theists have a strong desire to do what they can to run away from their burden of proof.”
The persuasive burden of proof rests on whoever wants to do the persuading. I think the most reasonable position is to conclude that even a small amount of contested evidence is still better than no evidence at all.
Atheists like to claim that theirs is the (lucky and lazy) default position with zero burden of proof and against which all others appear as brand new propositions.
Well, I actually don’t mind if atheists do this.
…they can remain unpersuasive for as long as they like.
🙂
Non-believers in alien abductions “like to claim that theirs is the (lucky and lazy) default position with zero burden of proof and against which all other appear as brand new propositions. Well, I actually don’t mind if atheists do this. …they can remain unpersuasive for as long as they like.”
In other words, thank you very much for proving my point: Theists have a strong desire to do what they can to run away from their burden of proof. That’s what most of Christian apologetics rhetoric consists of. 😉
I have all the proof I need.
What have you got?
Mormons have “all the proof” they need too. So why aren’t you Mormon? Hindus have “all the proof” they need too. So why aren’t you Hindu? Why aren’t you praying to Lord Ganesha? Muslims have “all the proof” they need too. So why aren’t you Muslim? Which direction are you facing when you kneel in prayer three times a day?
“What have you got?”
Thank you for *again* proving my point: You claim that this Bible god Yahweh exists, and not only do you not have the credible real world evidence to back it up, but you keep using vacuous rhetoric used deliberately to try to evade your burden of proof in the first place. Atheists don’t have the burden of proof. This is an obvious epistemological point that theists are all the time trying to run away from.
So I went and looked up Baal, and it seems the Yahwehists were a splinter denomination of the Baal religion. So, yeah, Lion_IRC does kind of worship Baal. The whole burning of sacrifices would have been endemic to the lot of them. If they find Jesus’s body, Lion will have to convert his barbecue so he can go back that.
They had some fun with Lion today on another thread .
I don’t visit that blog very often but Hemant Mehta trolled it on Twitter.
What Steve Greene keeps on missing is that the burden of proof issue isn’t epistemologically relevant here.
It’s not even biblically relevant because Christians are not commanded to convert – they are commanded to preach. (As Jesus Himself rightly pointed out, sometimes no amount of signs and wonders are enough to convince certain people.)
So Christians aren’t compelled to meet the persuasive burden of proof according to a standard set by empiricists or dogmatic skeptics.
It also goes without saying that the so-called burden of proof doesn’t even really apply in terms of the democratic, public square of politics either.
Methodological sceptics can’t impose their (self-serving) secular atheism upon a theist majority unless THEY as atheists, persuade those in the public square who are also entitled to be there.
…whether they have sufficient evidence for their beliefs and opinions or not.
You wrote, “the burden of proof issue isn’t epistemologically relevant here”.
Thank you for openly admitting my point that Christian apologists are all the time trying to run away from their burden of proof, let alone even trying to actually produce any credible real world evidence in the first place.
Steve
You just affirmed that Mormons, Hindus and Muslims all agree (with me) that there is evidence for theism of some sort..
Variation among different forms of theism does not make them all mutually exclusive of one another.
BTW – Muslims, Mormons, Christians and even some Hindus believe that the historical Jesus has a permanent relationship with divinity.
You wrote, “You just affirmed that Mormons, Hindus and Muslims all agree (with me) that there is evidence for theism of some sort.”
Here is what I had written: “Mormons have ‘all the proof’ they need too. So why aren’t you Mormon? Hindus have ‘all the proof’ they need too. So why aren’t you Hindu? Why aren’t you praying to Lord Ganesha? Muslims have ‘all the proof’ they need too. So why aren’t you Muslim? Which direction are you facing when you kneel in prayer three times a day?”
Apparently you don’t understand the nature of satire, either. Thank you for demonstrating how religious believers embrace incoherency as a “proof” of religious belief.
“Variation among different forms of theism does not make them all mutually exclusive of one another.”
Yes, of course, please do let us know how pleased your god is with sacrificing virgins to him, and please also show us the statistical studies showing how rain dances for Yahweh have increased precipitation.
I again want to thank you for demonstrating the irrational nature of the rhetoric relied upon by apologists for religious belief. It is appreciated.
Apparently you don’t understand what the word “atheism” even means, and so certainly don’t understand what it is.
Atheism merely refers to not believing in a god. Period. That’s it.
If you don’t believe in a god, you’re an atheist. It doesn’t matter what your worldview is, or isn’t, since whatever your worldview is is beside the point.
I’m always amazed at how so many Christians seem to have such an inordinate difficulty with comprehending this one simple point.
Some further discussion… Anyone who has read the anti-atheist rhetoric of Christian apologetics literature for any length of time is well aware of how for centuries Christians have deliberately misrepresented atheism as being just another religious dogma “God does not exist” from which atheists then derive some “worldview” of “atheism” – it is part and parcel of their false claim that atheism is religion (like Christian beliefs are religion). In fact, this is completely backwards, because atheism is merely an end-conclusion made on the basis of critical thinking and skepticism. The Christian claims, “God exists,” and the skeptic says, “If that’s true, then produce some good real world evidence to back it up.” The Christian then produces all sorts of fallacious or otherwise vacuous word games (usually, but not necessarily, based on the circular argument that whatever the Bible says is true, because the Bible is “God’s Word” and therefore must be true), but never actually produced credible empirical evidence to back his claim that a god exist. So the skeptic says, “Since there isn’t any good evidence to back it up, I don’t buy it.” And this conclusion is what he reaches in regard to every god humans have ever fabricated. So this makes him an atheist.
Atheism does not say anything about whether you should eat chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream. Atheism does not say anything about whether you should be a Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican. Atheism does not say anything about whether premarital sex is okay or not okay. Atheism does not say anything about any morals at all. This is because atheism is not a worldview, but refers to one thing, and one thing only: Not believing in any god.
Now, if you want to talk about the worldview of a utilitarian realist, you might get some better traction. And if the utilitarian realist is an atheist, then you could say that atheism is part of his worldview. So there is your answer: Atheism can be part of someone’s worldview, but atheism itself cannot be a worldview, since not believing in a god is the only thing that atheism is.
“You may have heard it said that “everybody has a worldview.” In recent discussions with online atheists and having viewed several videos, I have noticed that this does not seem to be the case. Some are saying that atheism is not a worldview.”
Uh, that’s not proper logic. Change “atheist/atheism” to “people with brown hair” and read it.
The color of a persons hair is a fairly mundane, terrestrial matter.
Hardly a transcendent matter of relevance to the whole world.
Atheism versus Theism on the other hand, does seem to be on a scale magnitude somewhat more important.
If existential questions about our origins, our destiny, our ultimate meaning of life don’t qualify as views relevant to the whole world/universe/multiverse, then nothing does.
“Atheism versus Theism on the other hand, does seem to be on a scale magnitude somewhat more important.”
“Importance” is not the same as “a world view”.
“If existential questions about our origins, our destiny, our ultimate meaning of life don’t qualify as views relevant to the whole world/universe/multiverse, then nothing does.”
Atheism merely indicates the absence of belief in the existence of gods. There are any number of views to origins, destiny, ultimate meaning of life, etc. under atheism (or theism, for that matter).
Neither one necessitates a particular worldview, though each would preclude some particular worldviews — obviously, an atheist wouldn’t have a worldview that includes god(s) existing, and a theist wouldn’t have one that excluded all gods.
Excellent articulation of the point.
Talking about “worldview” is an over-generalization. Actually, it’s meaningless even to talk about a Christian worldview, because so many Christians believe so many different things. Why do you want to apply such simplistic labels to atheists? I guess it’s so you can create a strawman and then more easily dismiss these people with their threatening ideas.
Talking about “worldview” is a crutch for lazy thinkers. It’s a way of lumping diverse people together in a tidy box. Why can’t you just admit that atheists disagree among themselves on many things?
On origins, atheists believe many different theories. On meaning, again, atheists have lots of different beliefs. On morality, not all atheists are relativists. It’s just silly for you to assume they are. On our destiny – OK, you might be right on that one. So you score 1 out of 4.
Sharing a worldview does not mean that those who hold it are in agreement about specific issues – it means they come to the data of existence with a shared set of presuppositions. Some Christians may add additional presuppositions that would differentiate them from others, but this does not remove them from holding a basic Christian worldview. I would disagree, however, with the article’s claim that “atheism” is itself is a worldview. It is a a position that may be part of multiple such worldviews. For example, one could be an atheist and hold spiritualist, New Age, or Buddhist worldviews that would be far different from that of Richard Dawkins. I think that perhaps rather than calling “atheism” a worldview, it would have been more accurate to label the worldview Rob Lundberg likely had in mind as “naturalism.”
I would say that denying the term “worldview” is the intellectually lazy approach.
So often real< atheists…err I mean… non-stamp collectors retreat to the neutral corner and claim they merely lack theism, and claim theirs is the default, ‘born-that-way’ tabula rasa.
…which would be fine, except they often take this approach AFTER having just critiqued someone else’s worldview
No matter what Mr Dillahunty says about ‘world views’ he cannot ignore the fact that millions of pages have been written by atheists about atheism – a word which is structurally related to ‘theism’.
And he cannot ignore the fact that atheists gather at international conventions to discuss “The Atheist Perspective”
https://www.ibka.org/en/convention2012
“No matter what Mr Dillahunty says about ‘world views’ he cannot ignore the fact that millions of pages have been written by atheists about atheism – a word which is structurally related to ‘theism’.”
So what? “theism” isn’t a world view, either.
“And he cannot ignore the fact that atheists gather at international conventions to discuss “The Atheist Perspective””
So what? Atheism still isn’t a worldview, just as theism isn’t a worldview.
It seems like you are just gainsaying here.
Fair enough. But to save words, why not just reply with
…“I disagree”.
Because I’m trying to point out why atheism isn’t a world view.