Atheism: idealism or not?

Question

Idealism says there is a way things should be and there is a way things are. The end goal of the way things are is to be the way they should be, so there is some inherent teleology built into idealism.

Many atheists see a bright future of humanity dumping religion and embracing atheism, which will usher in a new dawn for humanity. This bright-future optimism is for some atheists the ideal, or the way things should be.

If atheism assumes some form of idealism, how can it dump idealism in other realms such as ethics? C.S. Lewis realzied this contradiction in mere Christianity when he denied the existence of God based on the evil in the world. He pointed that such things require some objective (ideal) moral standars for evaluating the world, and in his case a "Moral Law Giver" was neccessary to have objective standards.

Realist, What is progress? How does one define progress in a realist framework.

Second, How is C.S. Lewis a bad philosopher? Alse, how is he a bad source of atheists when he himself was a former atheist?

Falco, it seems that you are advocating the flip side of the proposed question: ideal moral standards, but no particular teleology implied by atheism. Am I correct in this?

Godless, good point.

But is your inference that science will explain more and religion explain science itself? Is that not outside the bounds of science, or some sort of ideal epistemology?

Mage, can you explain to me how atheism doesn't assume anything? Why are you an atheists? People are athiests for various reasons.

If it is just disbelief, what is the reason for disbelif?

Answer 1

Hmm..interesting question. Personally as an atheist, I don't see a world where everyone is atheist as particularly ideal. I cherish the diversity of human beings, and I love the fact that personal circumstances, upbringing, and something perhaps entirely internal draws people to look beyond the limits of traditional physics and biology to think about things in a "spiritual" way. To question the confines of known science, and even to attribute their sense of wonder about the world and the broader universe to some inexplicable thing that lays beyond the common denominator of human experience. It's a big round world, and I think part of its richness comes from the melting and the sharing and even the tension between ideas. So to me, atheism is not an idealistic state, it's merely the one that fits right now for me.

However, I'm not sure that any particular god should be held up at the moral law giver for statutory law, as that has a tendency to isolate those who do not believe in that particular god. So while there should probably BE a standard of moral law within any given society, I believe it should be based on a principle of doing as little harm as possible to human beings and their property, and helping human beings advance and attain their societal goals, rather than on the doctrines of any one faith. Within society, if people choose to live their lives within the rules of a religious creed, I believe they should be allowed to do so as long as this does not conflict with the higher moral law of society as a whole.

Answer 2

It isn't idealism, and it isn't optimism. Most atheists I know are realists. Atheists have observed that science explains that which used to be explained in supernatural terms. It stands to reason that, as time passes, science will explain more, and fewer things will be attributed to divine causes. That doesn't mean that they envision some perfect, deity-free world in the future. It would be nice, but the probability isn't high enough to get excited about the idea. "The way things should be" is a useless concept, since that is not the way things are, and if it ever is, I won't be here to see it.

Answer 3

in my humble opinion, if everyone was atheist, there would be no more religious wars or persecutions, which would help improve world peace, but many Christians would argue that the whole world should be Christians, and every other religion will argue the same point. We would still have debates over land, money and resources. until all of the countries' governments can work together and not against each other, there will not be the idealism you are speaking of.

Answer 4

Atheism doesn't assume anything. It's nothing more and nothing less than the lack of belief in gods. There's no other philosophy attached to it.

Lewis isn't the best source of information of atheism and atheistic thinking, as his book is riddled with Mere Assumptions and Fallacies.

Answer 5

They are perfectly compatible. Just look at Karl Marx for example. A very staunch Atheist himself, the special and distinguishing thing about him and his philosophies is that he provides hope for the Working Class (Proletariat) that they will reach a state of egalitarianism, whilst denouncing the foundations of Religion which he criticizes as providing hope that is virtually an empty vessel that serves as the opium for the masses.

Answer 6

All we need do is look at the officially atheist Warsaw Pact (Oh, wait! It isn't there anymore!) and see that atheism caused a deficit in the soul and psyche of the people. After 70 or so years, it crumbled, and one of the first things they begged for from the West was teaching about God.

Yeah, it was like water to their thirsty souls. Ironically, in Russia, they are able to teach about Christ in schools. In the U.S., we are not. Go figure.

Answer 7

Agree with smarty pants, I don't think that it would be an ideal world if everyone dropped religion but it would be better.

Answer 8

Athiest just dont believe in God....thats it....stop reading or putting more into it than that. Go and worship your God we dont care!

Answer 9

Far from it, we are realists. Clearly, morals and ethics are distinct from deism, just look at Jim Jones, JIm Baker, etc.

Answer 10

C.S. Lewis wasn't a good philosopher.

He was good at writing children's books though.