Atheist philosophy

[ProfessorDavey]

What's the difference between a non-theist and an atheist philosophy?

A non theist philosophy would not require god, but would be silent of whether or not god exists. There are tons of them, from Kant's categorical imperative to the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, to the humanist Golden Rule to virtue ethics. None of these require god, but none preclude god necessarily.

An atheist philosophy would be one that requires the non existence of god - I can't think of any.

If we call something a theist philosophy, I don't think anyone is assuming that the philosophy is shared by all theists?

I agree and I never said it did. However a theist philosophy must be predicated on the assumption of the existence of a god or gods - and each theist philosophy may be based on assumption of existence of different gods.

What's your reasoning behind Samkhya falling into the non-theist philosophy category and not the atheist philosophy category?

See above - because the philosophy does not require god, but makes no assumption that god doesn't exist. And of course because there is no category of 'atheist philosophy'.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think a better term is non theist philosophy - in other words a philosophy not based on the notion of a deity.

Actually thinking about it further I think there is a better term:

Philosophy

There is no need to qualify it - to feel the need to qualify a philosophy because it isn't religious or theistic is to give a biased impression somehow that philosophy is about religion or deities.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

A non theist philosophy would not require god, but would be silent of whether or not god exists. There are tons of them, from Kant's categorical imperative to the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, to the humanist Golden Rule to virtue ethics. None of these require god, but none preclude god necessarily.

An atheist philosophy would be one that requires the non existence of god - I can't think of any.

No, the atheist position is a lack of belief in gods and within that group are atheists who will make the claim that gods do not exist.

A philosophy on metaphysics or the nature and purpose of the universe that does not include gods as being part of that explanation can therefore be called an atheist philosophy because the basis of theism is the belief that god is part of the explanation for the nature and purpose of the universe. You can call it non-theist if you prefer but it makes sense to call it an atheist philosophy or a non-theist philosophy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Actually thinking about it further I think there is a better term:

Philosophy

There is no need to qualify it - to feel the need to qualify a philosophy because it isn't religious or theistic is to give a biased impression somehow that philosophy is about religion or deities.

That doesn't make sense or rather you are wrong. Philosophies cover lots of different ideas so to narrow down the scope in describing this philosophy to be about the nature and purpose of the universe without involving gods as part of the explanation is valid. Clearly people do have a need to qualify philosophies, otherwise people would not qualify them in books and articles. That you don't want to qualify them is just your personal preference.

Sriram's opening sentence was "Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is an atheist philosophy".

Therefore it's pointless to say that "Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is a philosophy."

[Rhiannon]

Clearly there are atheist philosophies, just as there are theist ones, but I am unaware of a philosophy of atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Clearly there are atheist philosophies, just as there are theist ones, but I am unaware of a philosophy of atheism.

Then how is the position justified?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Clearly there are atheist philosophies, just as there are theist ones, but I am unaware of a philosophy of atheism.

I am unaware of a philosophy of atheism but there could be one. Possibly theism is about a belief in an intended overarching purpose and meaning to existence . Do some atheists believe in an overarching purpose to existence but it does not include gods, or does a lack of belief in gods include a lack of belief in some intended purpose because there is no belief in anything that could have an intention?

If posters know of any atheists who do believe in an *intended purpose to existence - anyone got any links?

* ETA intended

[wigginhall]

I'm not sure about purpose, but there are certainly atheists who argue that consciousness is part of the universe, so that there is both matter and mind.   Prime example is Thomas Nagel, in his recent book 'Mind and Cosmos'.   You would think that if you accept mind as a basic element, then mind would have intentions, but I will have to check Nagel.   Of course, not all atheists are materialists or physicalists. 

I think Nagel says that there may be a 'teleological principle' in the universe;  well, I am no wiser, as I don't really know what means.

[ProfessorDavey]

That doesn't make sense or rather you are wrong. Philosophies cover lots of different ideas so to narrow down the scope in describing this philosophy to be about the nature and purpose of the universe without involving gods as part of the explanation is valid. Clearly people do have a need to qualify philosophies, otherwise people would not qualify them in books and articles. That you don't want to qualify them is just your personal preference.

Sriram's opening sentence was "Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is an atheist philosophy".

Therefore it's pointless to say that "Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world is a philosophy."

But the notion of qualifying philosophies is on the basis of what they are, not what they aren't.

So we talk about Western philosophy, Middle Eastern philosophy, Buddhist philosophy etc but we don't describe Western philosophy as non-Eastern philosophy or even a-Eastern philosophy. To do so would imply that philosophy is really something associated with the East and therefore anything not from the East needed to be qualified.

Regarding Siriam's original quote, it would simply be rephrased as:

"Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world was not a theist philosophy"

[jeremyp]

An atheist philosophy would be one that requires the non existence of god - I can't think of any.

No I disagree. That would be an antitheistic philosophy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But the notion of qualifying philosophies is on the basis of what they are, not what they aren't.

So we talk about Western philosophy, Middle Eastern philosophy, Buddhist philosophy etc but we don't describe Western philosophy as non-Eastern philosophy or even a-Eastern philosophy. To do so would imply that philosophy is really something associated with the East and therefore anything not from the East needed to be qualified.

Regarding Siriam's original quote, it would simply be rephrased as:

"Probably the oldest existing philosophy in the world was not a theist philosophy"

If someone described a metaphysical philosophy that requires a lack of belief in gods as an atheist philosophy, I would understand the point being made and it sounds perfectly acceptable to describe it that way. Like I said, it comes down to a personal preference - you clearly prefer non-theist - whereas I did not mind if the philosophy was described as atheist or non-theist - as I was more interested in reading the explanation of the philosophy.