Probably a Different Perspective

[Crow]

meaning based purely on atheism:

What is the meaning of life? "I don't believe in god"
Is morality objective? "I don't believe in god"
Why do you enjoy living? "I don't believe in god"
Do you find life personally meaningful? "I don't believe in god"

^If that's a meaning system then some people's standards of "meaning" are a bit low. 

If you apply traditional buddhism, for instance, you'd actually get real answers to the above yet still be talking to someone who is an atheist.

Sorry I should of clarified my stance of atheism being a meaning system, atheism in my view isn't a meaning system from an existential perspective as each atheist has there own views on philosophy, logic, and life; so its unlike a meaning system that would be associated with religion. I do consider it a meaning system from a constructivist perspective as atheism is based in reality not in the supernatural. Atheists view the world from a personal perspective that is removed from deities, gods, afterlife and all other mumbo jumbo; therefore they make sense of the world giving them meaning from a foundation that is born out of reality.

[Whitney]

i still don't see how it could be defined as a "system" there is nothing about being an atheist that requires a person must use reality as a foundation for deriving meaning from things.  Someone can be an atheist and still believe in all sorts of supernatural things, they just wouldn't incorporate a god into that belief.  I think you are adding too much into what an atheist is...it's just someone who doesn't believe...a freethinker would be a better word for the type of meaning system you are describing.

[Twentythree]

I absolutely agree. I think that theism or atheism give you a fundamental perspective on reality. With this perspective then, each individual is able to attach all sorts of meaning to everything they experience or do. It seems to me like there could be levels to meaning systems just like the levels in biological systems. So theism/atheism would me macro meaning systems where as how you believe you household should be run would be a micro meaning system with all sorts of levels in between. It's just an idea.

[Crow]

i still don't see how it could be defined as a "system" there is nothing about being an atheist that requires a person must use reality as a foundation for deriving meaning from things.  Someone can be an atheist and still believe in all sorts of supernatural things, they just wouldn't incorporate a god into that belief.  I think you are adding too much into what an atheist is...it's just someone who doesn't believe...a freethinker would be a better word for the type of meaning system you are describing.

Yeah your right, my bad I had totally forgot about ancient astronaut theorists and the like. If you applied what I originally said about atheism and meaning systems to these the theory falls flat on its face.

[Twentythree]

i still don't see how it could be defined as a "system" there is nothing about being an atheist that requires a person must use reality as a foundation for deriving meaning from things.  Someone can be an atheist and still believe in all sorts of supernatural things, they just wouldn't incorporate a god into that belief.  I think you are adding too much into what an atheist is...it's just someone who doesn't believe...a freethinker would be a better word for the type of meaning system you are describing.

When you define something, if you were to regress that definition wouldn't it end up ultimately resting on your view of reality, or how you perceive reality? Just a totally generic example being:

Why is water wet?
Because of its molecular properties.

What are molecules?
Tiny structures of atoms.

What are atoms?
Particles that make up matter?

And on and on until you get to how did matter come into existence?

An atheist would say something different than a theist. In either case the meaning attributed to all of these preceding questions is based on your fundamental view of reality. It appears to me that this type of regression can be made for everything that we attribute meaning to. So based on this example of regression how does atheism differ from theism as a root cause for the meaning of everything? Either god made reality or he didn't right?

[Whitney]

i still don't see how it could be defined as a "system" there is nothing about being an atheist that requires a person must use reality as a foundation for deriving meaning from things.  Someone can be an atheist and still believe in all sorts of supernatural things, they just wouldn't incorporate a god into that belief.  I think you are adding too much into what an atheist is...it's just someone who doesn't believe...a freethinker would be a better word for the type of meaning system you are describing.

When you define something, if you were to regress that definition wouldn't it end up ultimately resting on your view of reality, or how you perceive reality? Just a totally generic example being:

Why is water wet?
Because of its molecular properties.

What are molecules?
Tiny structures of atoms.

What are atoms?
Particles that make up matter?

And on and on until you get to how did matter come into existence?

An atheist would say something different than a theist. In either case the meaning attributed to all of these preceding questions is based on your fundamental view of reality. It appears to me that this type of regression can be made for everything that we attribute meaning to. So based on this example of regression how does atheism differ from theism as a root cause for the meaning of everything? Either god made reality or he didn't right?

what does any of that have to do with a "meaning system"?  There is a difference between a system through which meaning is derrived and understanding the world around us.

[Twentythree]

Dr. Wilson does a better job of explaining how atheism could be considered a meaning system or in this case a "Stealth Religion". Agree with it or not it's still a fantastic read and a disappointingly short one at that.

"These and other belief systems are not classified as religions because they don't invoke supernatural agents, but they are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism. The presence or absence of supernatural agents--a particular departure from factual realism--is just a detail. It is humbling to contemplate that the concerns typically voiced about religion need to be extended to virtually all forms of human thought. If anything, non-religious belief systems are a greater cause for concern because they do a better job of masquerading as factual reality. Call them stealth religions."

Enjoy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_b_76901.html

[Whitney]

Dr. Wilson does a better job of explaining how atheism could be considered a meaning system or in this case a "Stealth Religion". Agree with it or not it's still a fantastic read and a disappointingly short one at that.

"These and other belief systems are not classified as religions because they don't invoke supernatural agents, but they are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism. The presence or absence of supernatural agents--a particular departure from factual realism--is just a detail. It is humbling to contemplate that the concerns typically voiced about religion need to be extended to virtually all forms of human thought. If anything, non-religious belief systems are a greater cause for concern because they do a better job of masquerading as factual reality. Call them stealth religions."

Enjoy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_b_76901.html

That article has absolutely nothing to do with atheism being a belief system..it is about how "new atheism" is a belief system...it is false to assume that everyone who is an atheist is a new atheist. 

[Davin]

I agree that belief systems "are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism." The issue is that this is not a true dichotomy, I don't think it's necessary to have a belief system or meaning system because I've been getting around just fine without them. It's ridiculous to posite that the lack of belief in something is a belief system. That's like saying the lack of blue paint on my car makes my car a blue car.

[Twentythree]

That is not the essence of the argument. Truth content and "belief" aren't crucial parts to a meaning system. Meaning systems are measured from an evolutionary perspective by what behaviors the induce. Your lack of belief affects your behavior, gives the things you do meaning and influences you interpretation of new information. Therefore, it can be qualified as a meaning system. For example, does your lack of belief play a role in whether or not you decide to attend church service, political rallies, or certain concerts? Does you lack of belief influence the types of friends you have or the types of literature you purchase or the types of information you seek out on the internet? does your  If you can answer yes to even one of those questions then your lack of belief in a god has influenced your behavior or shaped the "meaning" of your experience. You can label it whatever you want free thinker, atheist, new atheist whatever. But if your view of reality influences you behavior then i has to be considered in this discussion of meaning systems.

"It's ridiculous to posite that the lack of belief in something is a belief system. That's like saying the lack of blue paint on my car makes my car a blue car."

you are getting belief and meaning confused here. Lack of belief is lack of belief but it is in that lack of belief that you derive meaning for the things you do. Even posting here is influenced by that and therefore gives it meaning. We are not talking about belief systems but meaning systems.

Perhaps another question will help illustrate what I'm getting at there. You say that you do not have a belief system. Do you believe that you are correct?

Whitney,

Your argument regarding the distinction between atheism and new atheism as it pertains to meaning systems is not fully developed in my opinion. That is like saying that Christianity is not a meaning system but Catholicism is. Or that Islam is not a meaning system but Suni is. Or that democracy inst but liberalism is.

It seems to me that new atheism is just an organized potentially fundamentalist group of atheists. Doesn't it seem at least a little interesting at least that atheism developed groups of fundamentalists just like other world religions? Just like other meaning systems?

[xSilverPhinx]

meaning based purely on atheism:

What is the meaning of life? "I don't believe in god"
Is morality objective? "I don't believe in god"
Why do you enjoy living? "I don't believe in god"
Do you find life personally meaningful? "I don't believe in god"

^If that's a meaning system then some people's standards of "meaning" are a bit low. 

If you apply traditional buddhism, for instance, you'd actually get real answers to the above yet still be talking to someone who is an atheist.

LoL couldn't have put it better myself.

[xSilverPhinx]

It seems to me like there could be levels to meaning systems just like the levels in biological systems. So theism/atheism would me macro meaning systems where as how you believe you household should be run would be a micro meaning system with all sorts of levels in between. It's just an idea.

What exactly do you mean by this? I've watched some of Sloan's videos, and see his multilevel selection theory being just a descriptor for how meaning systems evolved, not about the levels (could you elaborate?) of a meaning system.

[Twentythree]

I know it, you've watched and posted and engaged in some interesting discussions about Meaning Systems on other forums. The idea of multi level meaning systems didn't come directly from Wilson. It was just an idea I had. In biology there are tiers of complexity going all the way from micro biology to macro biology, there is also micro evolution and macro evolution, proximate and ultimate causation and the like so my idea was just that perhaps like other biological systems there are tiers or levels to meaning systems. Theism or atheism being macro meaning systems whereas Christianity or Humanism could be one level up and so on until you reach micro meaning systems which would be things like family values or food preference. Something like that, I also understand that these systems could not develop independently but would have to be interlinked or intertwined with other influences your psychology and of course your biology and physiology. Or perhaps Atheism would be an ultimate causation of your personal meaning system, whereas family values would be proximate. Just and example you know.


Disclaimer:
This entire post is just me thinking out loud having my own ideas about something that I learned from someone else so I would hope that I am not berated about giving specific examples, or citing experts. It's just an idea ok. If you have input or criticism I'm totally cool with that but again, most of everything above came form my imagination, and I am clearly not an expert.

[Whitney]

Your argument regarding the distinction between atheism and new atheism as it pertains to meaning systems is not fully developed in my opinion.

That's probably because, for whatever reason, you think the word atheist has more to it than simply "no belief in god"

That is like saying that Christianity is not a meaning system but Catholicism is.

um...no

It's like saying that bald is not a hair color but brown is.

[xSilverPhinx]

I know it, you've watched and posted and engaged in some interesting discussions about Meaning Systems on other forums. The idea of multi level meaning systems didn't come directly from Wilson. It was just an idea I had. In biology there are tiers of complexity going all the way from micro biology to macro biology, there is also micro evolution and macro evolution, proximate and ultimate causation and the like so my idea was just that perhaps like other biological systems there are tiers or levels to meaning systems. Theism or atheism being macro meaning systems whereas Christianity or Humanism could be one level up and so on until you reach micro meaning systems which would be things like family values or food preference. Something like that, I also understand that these systems could not develop independently but would have to be interlinked or intertwined with other influences your psychology and of course your biology and physiology. Or perhaps Atheism would be an ultimate causation of your personal meaning system, whereas family values would be proximate. Just and example you know.


Disclaimer:
This entire post is just me thinking out loud having my own ideas about something that I learned from someone else so I would hope that I am not berated about giving specific examples, or citing experts. It's just an idea ok. If you have input or criticism I'm totally cool with that but again, most of everything above came form my imagination, and I am clearly not an expert.

Ah okay. I'm reminded of interpretational paradigms, such as theism or atheism.

How could one being an atheist affect one's food choice? The most obvious thing to me is saying 'no thanks' to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus.