Posted: Jan 18, 2019 11:54 am
zoon wrote:
I am not bothered by theists using the word "ideology" to describe the scientific worldview that the evidence suggests things can be fully described in mathematical terms which are not unduly complex. I would say that the laws of physics are coherent enough to constitute a belief system, when they are taken as the basis of a personal worldview. This is in contrast to atheism, which I don't think can be described as an ideology, because it includes any belief system which doesn't include belief in gods.
Atheism doesn't include anything, it excludes theism.
Also the laws of physics are not a belief system, they're a description. Believing that they govern the universe would be a belief.
zoon wrote:
I agree with you that those beliefs drive atheism, rather than the other way round. Have I suggested otherwise?
You have suggested that atheism contains the ideology of scientific rationalism.
And no, I did not say those beliefs drive atheism. I said that, of the two, the former might lead to the latter, but not necessarily so and certainly not vice versa.
zoon wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:zoon wrote: In particular, most modern atheists accept that the theory of evolution by natural selection can account, again, as far as the evidence shows, for all the appearance of functional design in living things, and therefore counters the argument from design. In the opening post of this thread and in later posts, Jayjay4547 has clearly been identifying evolutionary theory with "atheist ideology".
Which ignores the existence of atheists that don't accept ToE and theist who do, thereby ignoring the fact that accepting ToE has nothing to do with atheism.
There are people who chain smoke all their lives and do not get lung cancer; there are other people who have never smoked and die from lung cancer.
Two flaws with that analogy. A causal link has been demonstrated between smoking and lung health and cancer can be caused by multiple factors, one of which is smoking.
Meanwhile, a causal link between atheism and scientific rationalism has not been established.
zoon wrote:Does it follow that smoking has nothing whatsoever to do with lung cancer?
No what follows and what my point is that smoking doesn't necessarily lead to cancer, just like being an atheist does not necessarily lead to accepting scientific rationalism or vice versa.
zoon wrote:
Are you saying that there's no correlation between atheism and belief in the Theory of Evolution?
I am saying there's no causal link either way.
zoon wrote: You are saying that there are atheists who do not accept ToE; of course there are some, including all atheists who lived before the ToE was put forward in the 1800s, but I'm not aware of any sizeable group of atheists in the modern world who would seriously contest the ToE, do you have any such group in mind?
Irrelevant. The point being raised is that atheism doesn't necessarily lead to adopting scientific rationalism or vice versa.
All that is required to demonstrate that, is one example. Not a group.
zoon wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:zoon wrote:
Of course, "ideology" is a word which ordinarily (outside academic usage) tends to imply disapproval, so people who accept the scientific worldview often won't want to call it an ideology, but since the scientific worldview, including the theory of evolution, is in fact a coherent and interconnected set of provisionally held beliefs about the world, it's not unreasonable to expect opponents to describe it as an ideology?
I never objected to calling scientific rationalism a worldview or ideology.
My objection is to the insinuation and assertion that it is an atheist worldview or ideology.
I am certainly not saying that atheism has to be associated with the scientific worldview. On the contrary, I would say that atheism is most happily defined, for atheists, as including any worldview which does not include belief in god(s). I am saying that in the modern world, atheism tends to be correlated with the scientific worldview, because scientific predictions tend to work better than religious ones, so the scientific worldview often sees gods as redundant.
Again, correlation is not causation and atheism is simply the absence of theism.
I was never a theist. I was an atheist before I ever became aware of science or rationalism.
zoon wrote:
I would say that acceptance of the scientific worldview drives atheism, rather than the other way round - as you say, many theists do accept the theory of evolution, but I would see this as an example of theism on the way out. One generation believes there is a god who didn't create living things, the next generation is more likely to ask whether such an inactive god is actually there.
And I am saying neither necessarily drives the other..
Also, how is the continued survival of theism by incorporating science an example of theism dying?
zoon wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:zoon wrote:
As an atheist who broadly accepts the scientific view of the world, I would say that Christians have an ideology, and I would expect them to regard my positive beliefs as an ideology which is characteristic of modern atheists, though not an ideology which is common to all atheists?
The fundamental difference is that the worldview of Christians is the direct result of their specific theistic belief, it is based thereon.
The same is not true for ToE or scientific rationalism, both of which exist independent of atheism and indeed seem more likely to lead to atheism rather than vice versa.
Yes, I certainly agree with you that the positive beliefs of scientific rationalism are what drive people away from the different positive beliefs of theism, I'm not at all trying to suggest that atheism drives scientific rationalism.
Then you should phrase your claim more rigorously because you were definitely implying as much.