Atheist world view

It's fair to say that I'm a "world view" guy. That is, I enjoy thinking about and "taking out for a spin" (as we used to say about new cars) broad generalizations about how things connect with each other in the places where we live, which these days is increasingly the whole planet. I like to test people's "views" for logical consistency. I'm curious about how well someone's general principles relate to their actual political choices. And, even more to the point, I try to see how concrete actions based on abstract concepts (world views) might make life better or worse for different groups of people. So, when the AT published a column (Worldview matters) by someone who leads with a statement that he is sharing a "world view," I was interested. Admittedly the point of his column was to argue against Robert Kennedy as a health czar. For the time being I want to lay that aside. I want to comment on his way of thinking (conservative) that he lauded, and the other way (liberal/progressive) that he clearly sees as malign. First, I want to say that I'm no longer sure that either viewpoint is especially coherent within and relevant to the modern world. These views are heavily weighted with past problems, past conditions, and past decisions by governments. I don't find them very helpful. Broad generalizations, like cartoon helium filled parade balloons, tug at their lines and often float off into space. (Taking some of us with them.) That said, though, let's look at what he said about the two viewpoints. He starts with centering his world view on the distinctive actions of atheists and believers. He defines atheist as someone who believes there is no Heaven or Hell or eternal judgement, and throughout the column seems to equate this view with what he calls a progressive world view, or what most would call the "liberal left." He seems to imply that those who do not believe in an ultimate "Heaven," will try so hard to make the planet and human societies "a heaven on earth," that they will enact radical policies once in office. "From climate change to wealth policies, progressives believe this is all we will have [ i.e. No Future Heaven] and they will reorder the world…" He seems to ignore what I see is a strong Christian (most who are non-atheists) tradition that it is God's will that we be good stewards of the earth, that we care for the poor and seek justice on earth while we are still alive. All my life I have worked hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder with "brethren" who work for peace and justice and view climate change as a series threat to the very survival of millions of people. Some of them, I assume, believe in his God, and some believe in a spiritual dimension to life that they associate with traditional Christianity and many regard such "mysteries" as best felt rather than explicitly understood. And I can imagine many others who have rejected religion in all its forms that lead incredibly selfish lives and care nothing about social justice for other people, or climate events that do not affect them directly. (I think that he is actually a bit too favorable to his "atheists," as he seems to think them selflessly committed to leaving behind a better social order.) His further attempt to make pro-life action dependent upon a debatable (among Christians) view of when life begins, ruling out any pro-life sympathies for those who see themselves as "pro-choice." (He refers to pro-choice as pro-abortion. I've met no one who is PRO abortion, but certainly a majority who believe a fertilized egg is pre-life, to be viewed with awe and worth, but not to be equated with a developing child within the womb capable of life. And I know of many who are pro-choice that intensely support superior health care, a loving home, and educational excellence for the child.) The columnist goes on to say many abusive things about a man I doubt he knows any better than I do. He seems to be tying his (Kennedy's) general outlook to this "atheist worldview" that somehow follows from his initial atheist grounding. I actually don't know the state of Kennedy's present relationship to God. Some of his reported past behavior would seem to indicate he has been what Christians call a "sinner," but that in Christian theology is a general description that fits us all. In this columnist's mind he was a particularly bad sinner, but I was never taught that degree of sin negates what Christians call redemption. But overall, and this is why I reject reckless uses of "worldviews" (I actually want them to serve useful purposes), I find his statements about the actions of people who lack a specific set of Christian beliefs confused at best. Yes, many of them are troublemakers in the political world. Good intentioned people, I hope he gives them that benefit of doubt, who think they are taking our Christian heritage to heart, acting with kindness and mercy, serving human need and cooperating with others (I suppose cooperation is what he means by "collectivism"). They make what John Lewis, anything but an atheist, called "good trouble." John Bing is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Heidelberg University and writes a by-weekly newsletter at johnb0c.substack.com