Posted: Jan 19, 2019 5:49 pm
Thanks for the big effort you made to clarify your position, Zoon.
Somehow I missed reading your change of mind earlier. Now that you have drawn my attention to it, there is not much left that I disagree with. Just a couple of minor points.
Yes, the fact that the word 'ideology' has become odious in popular intercourse is unfortunate, and yes, 'worldview' is for all intents and purposes synonymous, though lacking said odium. There is nothing, however, that requires any worldview to be coherent, or even just reasonably coherent.
Looking for examples, Deepak Chopra comes to mind, as does Jordan Peterson. Both will indubitably protest that their respective worldviews are as coherent as any worldview can possibly be, but looking at the assumptions they are based on, I beg to differ.
Actually, theists need not be deists in order to accept the material, scientific world in its entirety. You are making the mistake of thinking that their theism must replace some of that world. In most of mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism this is simply not the case. Instead, the supernatural sphere is just added to it. The mythical Jesus Christ did not break universal mathematical laws when he performed his loaves and fishes trick. He just supervened on them. Though I think Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is problematic, it is useful for understanding what I mean.
Whenever I hear that term I run. The ogres of free will, intentionality, Dan Dennet's morass et cetera make me break out in pimples. As far as I am concerned we are just naïve inductivists à la Bertrand Russell's turkey, and that suffices for my needs Theory of Mindedly.
zoon wrote:The title of this thread includes the term “atheist ideology”, and it’s fair to say that I was carelessly courting strong disagreement when I defended it, even as used by an opponent of atheism. By defending the term “atheist ideology”, I managed to imply simultaneously both that there is a single belief system which is logically tied to atheism, and also that that belief system is irrational. Since I strongly disagree with both of those implications, I shall stop attempting to defend the term “atheist ideology”, and express my thanks to the people who have been pointing out the error of my ways.
Somehow I missed reading your change of mind earlier. Now that you have drawn my attention to it, there is not much left that I disagree with. Just a couple of minor points.
zoon wrote:Ideology, belief system, worldview.
I take all these terms to refer to a reasonably coherent set of positive beliefs about the world which a person or society accepts and lives by. I prefer to avoid the term “ideology” altogether here, since in ordinary usage it’s become pejorative: to say that someone has an ideology is to say that they have an irrational set of beliefs, which doesn’t help either clarity or coolness of discussion. I shall use “belief system” and “worldview” interchangeably.
Yes, the fact that the word 'ideology' has become odious in popular intercourse is unfortunate, and yes, 'worldview' is for all intents and purposes synonymous, though lacking said odium. There is nothing, however, that requires any worldview to be coherent, or even just reasonably coherent.
Looking for examples, Deepak Chopra comes to mind, as does Jordan Peterson. Both will indubitably protest that their respective worldviews are as coherent as any worldview can possibly be, but looking at the assumptions they are based on, I beg to differ.
zoon wrote:I am also not claiming that theists can’t hold the scientific worldview (although if they do, they need to be deists who say that their god doesn’t interfere in the observable world).
Actually, theists need not be deists in order to accept the material, scientific world in its entirety. You are making the mistake of thinking that their theism must replace some of that world. In most of mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism this is simply not the case. Instead, the supernatural sphere is just added to it. The mythical Jesus Christ did not break universal mathematical laws when he performed his loaves and fishes trick. He just supervened on them. Though I think Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is problematic, it is useful for understanding what I mean.
zoon wrote:...Theory of Mind
Whenever I hear that term I run. The ogres of free will, intentionality, Dan Dennet's morass et cetera make me break out in pimples. As far as I am concerned we are just naïve inductivists à la Bertrand Russell's turkey, and that suffices for my needs Theory of Mindedly.