Defining atheism
There’s a discussion at Talking Philosophy of how to define atheism. It’s basically about the difference between saying atheism is not believing that there is a god and saying that it is belief there there is no god. Me, I would define it the first way first and then add the second as a more affirmative or energetic version – but what I wouldn’t do is leave out the first. I think the first is 1) an important part of atheism and 2) a version of atheism that is more useful to a lot of people than the more affirmative version is. It has to be possible to be definitely non-theist without having to be affirmative about it.
It does seem fair to say that atheism doesn’t (or shouldn’t) really apply to people who’ve never thought about the matter at all – atheism does seem to be more affirmative than that. So the definition should include that. I suggested ‘Atheism is, at a minimum, explicit nonbelief in a god.’ ‘Explicit’ means that the question has been considered, and that belief has been at the very least declined, and perhaps refused or rejected. But that still doesn’t entail affirmative belief that there is no god – but it also doesn’t entail the ‘oh gee I just don’t know, I have no idea’ popularly attributed to agnosticism these days. It’s just a No. No means No.
Definition is definitely a problem/issue – the supernaturalists are often extremely keen to make “atheist”=”religion-hating, frothing-mouthed, (communistic), diseased mental pervert”
Well, that’s the impression I always got from my will-be-ex in-laws’ bunch of Baptists, anyway… :-)
Being of the “non-theist” persuasion meself, I do find the only-‘affirmatives’-are-“true”-atheists brigade irritating.
Couldn’t we just head directly (do not pass Go, do not collect £200) back to the original definition of the word, “godless”??
One of the problems in such discussions is actually caused by the other side: The slippery redefinitions of “God” engaged in by perpetually baiting-and-switching theologians and other intellectually dishonest hacks makes it very tricky to discuss the “positive” or “strong” atheism position.
Mere lack of belief in any gods, being an eminently reasonable default position that puts the burden of argument right where it belongs – on the person claiming that some invisible supernatural being exists – has only very loose definitional requirements: or none at all, when you really think about it. When one takes the default position of non-belief and leaves the arguments to those who claim that a god or gods exist, the burden of defining exactly what it is they claim exists belongs to them just as much as the burden of arguing for its existence does.
In contrast, if one is to make an argument for the positive claim that no gods exist, one must necessarily be addressing some particular gods: One must be arguing that some specific god or gods with certain properties does not exist. With careful definition I can argue against the existence of whole swathes of deities with certain properties, and certainly I can argue against the existence of all the gods that the overwhelming majority of religious people actually believe in. In response, however, the bait-and-switchers repeatedly move the goal-posts and generate new gods with slightly modified or freshly-invented properties that they think your argument misses. Such maneuvers are illegitimate ad hoc responses, of course, but the plebes are very impressed – then go on believing in the God they really think exists anyway, which in no way resembles the theologians’ rhetorical ad hoc inventions.
That’s why it is crucial for atheists always to remember that the first definition of atheism – lack of belief in any god or gods – is the proper and most useful core definition. It puts the burden of argument where it belongs, on the people who fervently insist that their imaginary friend exists. A clever atheist will wait until the theist actually gives a proper definition of what it is that they believe exists, what properties the entity they call “God” has: Then, by all means, atheists make your arguments that no such entity exists. Just remember that “God” is a term of willfully slippery and obfuscatory definition, so making any positive claim that “God” does not exist is foolish until you actually have a clear definition on the table – and if you’re the first one to put a definition on the table, you’re inviting another round of dishonest chicanery from the bait-and-switch brigade. I say screw that game! He’s their God; make them say what He is!
“It does seem fair to say that atheism doesn’t (or shouldn’t) really apply to people who’ve never thought about the matter at all “
I don’t see this. Any classifying term such as “atheist” is a tool for the classifer. The classified may be unaware of the need for it. Suppose we discover on another planet a civilization that has never had any concept of the divine or supernatural. We would describe such a society as “atheist”. The aliens themselves would never have thought about the question and may even find it incomprehensible at first. But surely they are and always have been atheists ?
Defining atheism with recourse to the word ‘believe’ is too much for me – I guess I’ll need to settle for sceptic then: it’s not a matter of belief but one of objective evidence. There’s no evidence for the type of God which is touted by organized religions, & that is that. Other kinds of Gods – maybe, if one would insist I would not argue with the God of electromechanics that is defined by Maxwell’s equations and that makes some metal things stick to other metal things.
I tend to agree with Paul here. Atheism is not anti-theism.
Besides, using the term only for those people who have thought about the question give the advantage to those who formulate the question, the theists.
If you reverse the problem, I know plenty of people who would probably call themselves christians or muslims or whatever, without thinking about it, precisely because they never really considered the question. Are they atheists?
The claim that one has to consider the question of god (or that one has to have a belief that there is no god) in order to be an atheist entails that some people are neither theists nor atheists: babies, aliens from Paul’s example, kids who grew up in some communist countries (like I did)…
So, what are they?
Belief, belief, belief – atheism is not believing, because there is something a lot better than mere belief.
If that makes dogs atheist, good on ’em but I don’t see them quite mastering an alternative that’s better.
Being atheist therefore does NOT make a dog out of us.
I’ve never liked the word atheist, or agnostic for that matter. They both seem to imply that I’m obliged to state my position on a matter that I simply refuse to take seriously, as if the check-box has already been ticked and I’m obliged to opt-out. Some people believe in the existence of fairies too, I don’t and I reject the idea that I should call myself an afairyist, or whatever.
By declaring oneself to be an atheist you are letting theists know that you take their metaphysical beliefs at least seriously enough to feel the need to oppose them. If a dog barks at you in the street do you run over, remonstrate with it and then spend inordinate amounts of time discussing the problem of dog barking?
Holding wide ranging and in depth discussions of atheism just seems to be a case of feeding the trolls. I don’t think we should give them the pleasure.
There’s also the issue of pantheists. If someone is simply using the term “God” as a synonym for “universe”, then it seems unnecessary to declare one’s opposition to a particular use of language.
‘Metaphysical naturalist’ anyone? ‘Physicalist’? ‘Anti-supernaturalist’? ‘Materialist’? There are lots of alternative conceptualisations, but ‘atheist’ is the one that gets people’s rag, because it’s a direct challenge to the visible master-concept. If you don’t want to mount that challenge, call yourself something else [but people will throw ‘atheist’ back at you anyway: it’s where the politics is.]
Dave wrote:
“If you don’t want to mount that challenge, call yourself something else [but people will throw ‘atheist’ back at you anyway: it’s where the politics is.]”
You’re right of course and I accept that. Indeed, because of the fact I frequently refer to myself as an atheist, despite my comments above.
Nevertheless, I feel that whatever label is used, it ought to be positive, broader in its implication and more constructive. It’s almost insulting to have used as a definitive ethical label a term that implies a “lack” of something, and something that personally, I don’t even have time for. It just plays right into the hands of theists who love nothing better than to characterise non-theists as people who lack something important, namely, “faith”. It makes those who have no truck with religious metaphysics appear insecure and defensive. We should be able to rise above absurdity. A boxer always strives to fight his own fight, to impose himself upon his opponent and not to allow the other fighter to dictate the terms.
IMO, the best way to combat absurdity is not to sink down to the level of those who make non-empirical claims by building an opposing fortress. It’s better to build an ethical “stage”, brightly lit with reason, on which groundless beliefs can be seen for what they are each time they venture onto it. This web site is, IMO, an excellent example of such a stage. There are few shadows here for nonsense to hide within.
If pressed to describe yourself, for example a Christian, you can always try this:
“I am not a Christian, like the majority of people in the world”.
G. Tingey wrote:
” … You then are entering the territory of “personal/subjective experience” which is ALWAYS used as a get-out by the faithful. (“God spoke to me”) “
Is there any other kind of experience? ;-)
I don’t really see the problem here. We already have a defence against this kind of nonsense. If someone walks into the office one morning and declares “my little finger is all powerful, bow down or it’ll kick your butt!” we don’t mount a robust defence of our belief that his finger isn’t omnipotent. That’s just silly. Instead we suspect that he has cracked under the strain of work, or else has “mentally malfunctioned” in some other way.
I guess my point is, that creating a global league of atheists (and then trying to decide what that term actually means) is the wrong response to the problem. It throws the onus onto us, which is not where it should be! (Which, I think G. is saying in his/her second paragraph above).
His: G is George Felis; he has some articles in the Articles section here. He’s not anon, G is just a nickname!
“Nevertheless, I feel that whatever label is used, it ought to be positive, broader in its implication and more constructive.”
Well it’s always possible to use other labels for other purposes. But in some contexts ‘atheist’ is the word that says what needs to be said in that particular context.
S’okay, OB: I’m always glad to be a his/her… Keep ’em guessing, I say!
;-)
Anyway… This point jumped out at me:
Roger Lancefield said: It’s almost insulting to have used as a definitive ethical label a term that implies a “lack” of something, and something that personally, I don’t even have time for. It just plays right into the hands of theists who love nothing better than to characterise non-theists as people who lack something important, namely, “faith”.
Well I dunno what you might mean by the phrase “definitive ethical label,” but in general I don’t think this is playing into the theists’ hands at all. I absolutely WANT to be characterized and known as someone without faith – in much the same way that, if the subject should come up, I want to be characterized and known as someone without STDs. ;-)
Defining oneself by a lack or absence of some quality often has a value component to it: If you bother to define or label yourself as lacking something, it’s very likely that you see that “something” as a property or quality that you are pleased not to have! And it’s not just a matter of self-labeling: The virtue of absences have a prominent place in everyday life, such as when we buy hormone-free milk or sugar-free gum. Some things are very nicely and positively defined by the absence of some property or quality which we see as being negative.
I know that when I declare myself an atheist – even in the “negative” or “weak” sense of lacking belief in any god or gods – I am laying claim to epistemic virtue, or at least to the absence of a notable epistemic vice. Accepting a claim as true in the absence of any evidence and reasoning in support of the claim (and, frequently, in the presence of evidence and reasoning to the contrary) – in a word, faith – is such an obviously bad idea that I am constantly bemused at how anyone can consider it a virtue. Theism is always at some level a product of faith, and faith (in the sense defined above) is an epistemic vice: In some sense, faith is the quintessential epistemic vice, the foundation for all rationalizations. So when I call myself an atheist, I am PROUDLY declaring that I am utterly and completely lacking in faith.
I’m saying, or at least strongly implying: “No, actually, I don’t accept the truth of your unsupported dogma and ludicrous ancient superstitions on just your say so. I generally think it’s a bad idea to accept beliefs and leap to conclusions in the utter absence of evidence. And I don’t accept everything I learned at Mother’s knee at face value… Because I’m a grown-up.”
George Felis: Proudly faith-free since 1967!
Yes…Maybe that’s why I’m so obstinate about this. I think not believing is an adequate definition, and should be the overarching one, with the more assertive variety being a subset of that. That’s because I think not believing things for no good reason is preferable to believing things for no good reason; I don’t think we should have to say we believe X in order to lay claim to the title. Just not believing is enough.
I agree, though I’d say agnosticism is less “I have no idea” and more “It is not possible to know this, because of the natural parameters of rational thought.” I consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic: I don’t believe there is a god, but I also think it’s impossible to prove either the existence or nonexistence of such a being.
George people tend to be imprinted with their religions from childhood so how is the s.t.d comparison valid?
Richard, have you tried googling ‘joke’, ‘humour’, ‘irony’?
Besides, people are not ducklings, they do not ‘imprint’ – else how did the first atheist ‘happen’? People ‘lose their faith’ all the time, other people ‘convert’ in every conceivable direction. Your premiss is flawed.
OB, perfect, but,
“That’s because I think not believing things for no good reason is preferable to believing things for no good reason”
not quite perfect. We have good reason for not believing.
Richard, buy a clue. First, the actual logical point I made is perfectly legitimate: The basis for the comparison was simply that sometimes lacking a trait or property can in itself be a good thing – such as lacking STDs. Therefore there is no reason to be dismissive of atheism when it is defined primarily as lacking something, god beliefs or faith or whatever.
On top of that, I even included the little wink symbol to indicate that the comparison was meant with humor: I was implying, quite deliberately for sheer rhetorical and humorous impact, that I would no sooner want to be known as a man of faith than I would want to be known as a man with an STD.
That is not true, of course. I would rather acquire an STD than a faith belief – or at least a non-fatal one.
And no, I’m not joking now. Your comment has implications that I’d like to tease out and think about: I did’t originally intend to compare STDs and religion directly, but now that you’ve brought it up I think it’s worth looking at more closely.
The first thing I noted was a potentially very nasty implication. You bring up children as a direct contrast to people with STDs – in this context, the relevant property of children being that they are innocent and not blameworthy for what is thrust upon them, such as religion. This pretty obviously implies that STD sufferers *are* in some way blameworthy. That’s a wicked and cruel notion, and deserves to be opposed at every turn.
Remember, the ‘D’ in STD stands for DISEASE! People afflicted with a disease are not in general considered to be blameworthy for it. But when the disease is sexually transmitted, then blame is often assigned with thoughtless cruelty. The stigma associated with STDs is almost entirely due to the perpetuation of the darkest remnants of long-dominant Christian ideology, combining the hyper-prudery that hates human sexuality (especially women’s sexuality – thanks Paul!) with the sick notion that those who suffer for misfortune are being punished by God for some sin or another. Those ideas and the “morality” they promote are cruel and stupid, period. Demonizing STD sufferers is the worst sort of medieval nonsense.
Setting that sort of thing aside, though, what about this notion that people are generally not responsible for acquiring a religion? Yes, religion is often thrust upon people as children, so they don’t choose it for themselves. But how is that unlike acquiring an STD? Barring a few very rare cases of people suffering from serious mental illnesses, no one has every deliberately chosen to acquire an STD. In contrast, adults often make a deliberate choice to adopt a religion. So it would seem at first glance that a lot more people are responsible for acquiring religion than are responsible for acquiring an STD.
Setting aside the question of children, then, let’s look at adults and their responsibilities. As opposed to the sick and wrong idea that STDs are some sort of moral pollution or divine punishment, it is not unreasonable to look at the fact that many people who acquire STDs are adults and in some sense ought to know better: That is, adults ought to take precautions against harmful diseases – when they are aware of the diseases’ existence, and there are reasonable precautions which can be taken, and so on – and thus are in some sense responsible for the consequences of any failure on their part to take precautions. (If STDs push too many emotional buttons, think about smoking and cardiovascular disease instead.) I will leave aside the fact that precautions often fail (cheating spouses sometimes inflict STDs on responsible, monogamous partners, for example), and will instead focus on those situations where there does seem to be a degree of responsibility: Some people do engage in risky behavior, and so can be held at least partially responsible for the harms that befall them.
But if adults who acquire STDs are responsible in this sense, then what excuse do adults who adopt faith beliefs have? They too ought to know better. Surely a responsible adult ought to take precautions against harmful ideas, just as one ought to take precautions against harmful infections. But the very nature of faith is that the faithful toss aside the only precautions humans have against harmful ideas – requiring evidence and reason in support of our beliefs, and believing only in proportion to the strength of available evidence and reasoning. Faith is the epistemological equivalent of unprotected sex at an orgy with needle-sharing drug addicts, yet by some perversity of group identity politics and sheer cultural inertia it is perceived as virtue rather than vice.
If we are going to hold adults responsible for the consequences of their actions, which I generally think is a fine idea, then by all means let’s compare STDs and faith. Condoms are fairly inexpensive, but critical thinking is free. It’s a tragedy that the U.S. generally fails to teach its children much about either.
JoB, you misunderstood – I meant it this way –
‘That’s because I think not [believing things for no good reason] is preferable to [believing things for no good reason]’ – in other words I don’t mean there is no good reason for not believing, I mean refraining from believing things for no etc is preferable.
G. You may have over thought my comment,I just thought it was a bad comparison because one required an overt act the other might not,I would have said proud to be known as a man without predudice would have worked better for me at least. That said great answer and food for thought.as for blame and punishment if God punished me for every reckless stupid or risky behavior I had engaged in I would be burning in hell at this moment,so I dont hold others to a higher standard. As for adults who adopt a religion in later life I would basicly agree with you it shows a lack ability to think criticaly. Although I can only speak about people I have met who are religious nearly all of them just seem to have inherited that faith (along with their politics as well) from their parents and just never question those beliefs.
Although I have also found in a lot of people I have met that have had a bad relationship with their parents seem to have adopted polar oposite positions to their parents in things like religion and politics,and also seem not to question.
Oh, I wasn’t reading all that much into your comment, Richard. I was just… inspired. I certainly didn’t intend accuse you of taking the various implications I spun out too seriously (and I was careful not to do so). That was all me. Although I think the “overt act” notion misses the point: People don’t choose STDs any more than children choose the family (and religion) they’re born in to. People don’t choose lots of things, and that’s always worth keeping in mind.
I certainly agree that most people who are religious are raised in it without any real choice on their part. And I too have met people who reject their parents’ dogma without thinking their positions through any better than their parents did: Dogma that says “yes” instead of “no” at every turn is still just dogma.
Really, though, I was just seized by the idea of comparing faith and STDs. It was an argument-meets-poetry-meets-irony sort of moment. Thanks for the inspiration!
:-)
G
OB: “I think not believing is an adequate definition, and should be the overarching one, with the more assertive variety being a subset of that.”
Yes. I think there is a big difference between
a) I don’t believe in god.
AND
b) I believe there is no god.
I think I can go with (a) but I struggle with (b).
The pleasure was all mine G. your answer gave me food for thought during a realy bad dose of insomnia.
Do people choose to have sex(overt act) or should it be regarded as a biological imperetive?
I prefer to take the position of an Ignostic that there is no logical, consistent definition of God.
theist: I think there is a god
atheist: I don’t think there is a god
agnostic: I don’t think we can know if there is a god
ignostic: What do you mean by ‘god’?
The logical inconsistencies by concepts such as omnipotence, omniscience, omni- benevolence etc. usually ascribed to God/Allah/Yaweh etc. stop me from considering such a being’s existence. It is to me as futile an exercise as contemplating the existence of a square-circle. Does that make me an atheist, afairist, or aXist? I think not, until one can define atheist without reference to the word ‘god’.