Unthinkable
From Why Atheism? by George Smith (Prometheus 2000) p. 17:
If most Christians (and other religious believers) dismiss atheism outright, this is not because they have examined the arguments for atheism and found them wanting, but because they do not take atheism seriously enough to examine its arguments in detail. Atheism, in their view, lacks credibility, so they have no motive to examine it further. To portray atheism as utterly lacking in credibility has long played a crucial role in religious propaganda. Atheism must be rendered unthinkable, because doubt, if left unchecked, can easily propel the believer down the path of deconversion (the process by which a religious believer becomes an atheist)…To say that atheism is credible is to suggest that the atheist may be right; to say that the atheist may be right is to suggest that the Christian may be wrong; to say that the Christian may be wrong is to suggest that faith may be an unreliable guide to knowledge; to say that faith may be an unreliable guide to knowledge is to suggest that each and every tenet of Christianity should be reexamined in the light of reason.
That would explain a lot. That would explain the way theists fail to engage with the arguments that atheists actually make, and it would explain the way they pretend atheists make silly futile claims that they don’t actually make. That would be because theists aren’t paying attention to what atheists say at all, they’re just ignoring all of it and proceeding on their own pre-ordained track, like a runaway train ignoring all signals because the engineer has stepped outside for a sandwich.
And, of course, they dont want to, or dare not take atheism seriously.
It is a very effective defence mechanism.
I’m reminded of one of the church’s people (I forget who) refusing to look through signor Galilei’s telescope, to see the moons of Jupiter.
The completely insane reaction of many in the USA, to trust a muslim (even though they are “all” terrorists, more than an atheist is also symptomatic of this mind-set.
It isn’t just the christians – the muslims also have this problem with atheists – I’m not sure that, officially, they recognise that we exist – we are just a sub-set of the “unbelievers” as far as they are concerned.
This of course, is where all the totally misdirected criticism of Dawkins and the others comes from.
The poor little things just can’t get their heads around the problem, so they deny that it exists.
And, that is quite a well-known phenomenon, in other fields as well, isn’t it?
I think we need a good definition of atheism — one that the great majority of us can agree on.
How about this?:
A viewpoint rejecting faith in the supernatural (spirits, gods, life after death, etc.); negation of religion.
It’s not as though it’s a new concept. The god-mongers need to read some pre-Jesus thought, like Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Democritus, Epicurus, Xenophanes and Lucretius.
I don’t reject faith in the supernatural, I just don’t feel that the evidence for it is strong enough. Or existent.
I also don’t negate religion. It keeps on going despite me.
This is also the mechanism that’s used by the absolutistic, “literalist” churches/mosques/temples/etc,etc, because they’re terrified of losing adherents to less dogmatic creeds…
So they constantly need to re-iterate requirements such as: (and I quote from Florence, KY, Baptist Temple)
1) A Childlike Faith = thinking too much is bad, mmm’kay?
2) Men are the Spiritual Heads of their Households (as ordered by God, naturally) = allowing women to think too much is bad, mmm’kay?
3) “We Believe That Man Has Been In The World for 6,000 years. We Reject The Weak Lie of Evolution”. = See what happens when you start thinking too much! It’s BAD! mmm’kay?
I could go on, but the ignorant certainty of these people becomes depressing after a while…
:-)
dirigible:
Maybe you don’t reject *the supernatural*, but you’re no atheist if you don’t reject *faith* in the supernatural.
Instead of “negation of,” I guess I should have said “opposition to” religion.
dirigible:
I still want to know what the connection is between Zizek and Ferry.
Surely the lyrics to “The In Crowd” make the connection clear?
Doug:
see http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2058341,00.html.
Ferry: “…I’m talking about Leni Riefenstahl films and Albert Speer’s buildings and the mass rallies and the flags – simply fantastic. Really lovely”
Doug
Please go back to the comment trail on Steve Poole where I’ve answered this and your other questions.
Alternatively, do what the rest of us do when we have a question and try Google.
I don’t want a new definition of atheism, because I think it tends to have to be specified what one means in any particular argument – or to put it another way, because it often has to be pointed out that anti-atheists tend to define it in a particularly tendentious, maximal way, which should be disputed. I want to keep the ability to point out that all atheism really has to mean – the minimal meaning – is non-theism. It does not have to mean anti-theism or positive claims that god does not exist, that it is certain that god does not exist, etc. I want to keep that distinction, because theists use the erasure of it as a weapon.
No. An atheist is a non-theist; that’s all.
You can use an expanded definition if you like, but then you have to specify it. All the word actually means is non-theist.
Mind you…I tend to use it to include resistance to religous claims…but that’s situational; it’s not actually part of the word.
This is why I decided to write a few monthly columns about “What Atheism Isn’t” instead of defining atheism: There are just so many darned misconceptions that need to be cleared out of the way first…
Chris Whiley:
I humbly beg your pardon for wasting what must have been many seconds of your valuable time.
G.T. I agree O.B.s definition seems more like an agnostic rather than an atheist,to my mind an atheist is someone who is certain God does not exist!although how anyone can be certain about the existance or non existance of God is beyond me.
George Smith:
>If most Christians (and other religious believers) dismiss atheism outright, this is not because they have examined the arguments for atheism and found them wanting, but because they do not take atheism seriously enough to examine its arguments in detail.< It is, of course, true that most Christians have not examined the arguments and found them wanting, but I think the reason in the great bulk of cases is that they do not experience their religious beliefs on an intellectual level, and are not *interested* in rational/logical justifications. For that reason the kinds of arguments on B&W (entirely appropriate for rebutting theist contentions) simply pass by many (probably most) Christians. Let me give a “for instance” that impinges on my current situation. My aged father is bedridden in his own home and the company providing most of the caring is evidently Christian based, judging by the fact that the carers (almost entirely of West Indian origins) passingly mention going to church and a couple of times I’ve noticed they have slim Christian pamphlets of the kind offered on the doorstep by evangelistic Christians. I’m sure they are not the least interested in the *logical* arguments pro and con Christianity [though personally I find it hard to conceive of any remotely plausible logical justification for any specific religion] — they just value what their beliefs, and church going, provides for them. Or, to give another example, a solicitor with whom I was recently having a conversation mentioned in passing that her opportunity to sing in a small local opera company had arisen out of her singing in her church. She also mentioned (in the context of my father) that she had done several years voluntary caring of old people through her church activities. I don’t suppose for one moment that she is interested in the arguments for atheism that George Smith alludes to. Her religion is simply not experienced at that level.
It’s not a matter of opinion; ‘atheist’ simply does mean ‘not theist’; that is what the ‘a’ in atheist means: ‘not’; it is a simple negation. Atheist means not theist the way ‘bachelor’ means unmarried man. What the accretions and connotations are of course is a matter of opinion, but my point there was to give the minimal, literal definition. More than the minimal is very much a matter of dispute, and theists love to rush in with all sorts of connotations of a pejorative nature – like Richard’s for instance: the claim to be certain that god doesn’t exist, at which theists can triumphantly point and laugh. That’s one reason it is important to be clear about what atheism in fact means, which is simply not-theism.
That’s not the same as agnosticism at all; agnosticism means non-knowledge.
I had thought that the idea that atheism involved some sort of inflexible certainty that there is no god was restricted to those who resolutely refuse to listen to what people actually say.
How many metaphors and figures of speech, how many clear, explicit writings, does it take to explain that regarding revealed religion as a hugely unconvincing, unsupported and unnecessary hypothesis is simply a reasonable position and doesn’t imply any overarching certainty about the nature of the universe?
I am a non-theist, but I concede the possibility that a really subtle deist could arrive at a refined definition of god which satisfied him and which I would have to concede as a theoretical possibility. Given my drastically limited understanding of cosmology and the outer reaches of mathematics.
Even of the anthropomorphic gods, or the polymorphic, the banal and the petty; of their existence I can’t and don’t claim certainty.
Why should I need to entertain certainty about someone else’s fantasy?
Richard: There’s a problem with conflating the claim “there is no God” with the claim “it is absolutely certain there is no God.”. It’s perfectly possible to hold to the first without claiming inflexible certainty – or to the converse, for that matter.
G. Tingey: your definition would have the drawback that it would turn me into an atheist (assuming that by “evidence” you mean “empirical evidence”). But for the rest, I’m sympathetic to more informative and explicit delineations of a philosophical position.
OB: Your proposed definition has, I think, the problem that defining the word “atheist” as someone lacking theistic beliefs would incorporate agnosticism: the lack-of-knowledge argument underpinning the agnostic position leads, for the agnostic, to a rejection of theistic beliefs (a fideist may combine a lack-of-knowability argument with religious faith, and it is perhaps not surprising that an agnostic such as Mark Vernon seems much more sympathetic to fideism than to rationalistic versions of theism). In any event, widening the term in this fashion would eventually necessitate distinguishing more explicit versions of atheism, which brings you back to square one. There are important differences between those who believe that the existence of God is, on empirical grounds, improbable; those who believe the very concept of God is self-contradictory or perhaps meaningless in some fashion; and those who disavow any claims about the existence of God.
Another thing is that atheism as “negation of theism” rather than “absence of theism” is the more common, and more widely current meaning of the word. You may (with Anthony Flew, for instance) want this to change, of course – but that’s the way things are as they stand. The fact that the Greek prefix a- means “not” is not relevant in this regard: words often mean something else than the sum of their components. There isn’t a “real” or “correct” meaning of atheist above and beyond the way the word is commonly used.
This does not mean that a collective effort (of atheists) to change the common usage of the word would be futile. I think it would be a bad idea for other reasons.
I, of course, strongly disagree with the George Smith quote. Of course most Christians do not deal in detail with the arguments for atheism, as most Christians likely do not deal with any philosophical argumentation – but I daresay that the same goes for most atheists (certainly if we take OB’s meaning of the word!). Moreover, the reasoning seems to me to be fairly sloppy. There’s a middle ground between thinking atheism is unthinkable and that it is credible. And the suggestion that the Christian may be wrong, and the atheist may be right, does not lead automatically to the conclusion that “faith may be an unreliable guide to knowledge” (it only does to those Christians who regard faith as a guide to knowledge – and those Christians are unlikely to end up here anyway, as they would tend to regard both apologetics and counter-apologetics as irrelevant, rather than incredible or unthinkable). The latter, in turn, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that “each and every tenet of Christianity should be reexamined in the light of reason”.
Merlijn, the definitional problem is yours, not OB’s. You claim that OB’s definition of atheism would incorporate agnosticism, then turn around and say that some agnostics believe in God. But since OB’s (and the standard) definition is precisely that atheists are those who lack belief in any God or gods, ipso facto it does not include agnostics – who may and occasionally do still choose to believe, even while acknowledging that they do not know.
Your maneuver glosses over the distinction between knowledge and belief: A theist is one who believes in the existence of God, therefore an atheist is, by the most basic definition, one who lacks such a belief. Whether and how a theist or atheist or agnostic claims to KNOW (or not know) whatever it is they believe (or simply withhold judgment on) is different from what they do or do not BELIEVE.
Stop re-defining words willy-nilly and then criticizing the definition you offer. There is a long-standing and much-discussed distinction between weak atheism and strong atheism – which, given your demonstrated background in these issues, I’m sure you’re aware of. As the less sweeping claim, weak atheism is the default definition of “atheism” except when someone pulls a Humpty-Dumpty and decides for themselves what the word means. Unless a given self-declared atheist specifically says otherwise, the only fair assumption to make is that he or she is a weak atheist: A very basic principle of charitable reading is not to attribute a stronger (and more difficult to defend) claim to someone than they actually make without any warrant.
And, since the subject has come up, even most strong atheists make more limited claims than are usually attributed to them. For example, Dawkins is very clear that his arguments are aimed specifically and only at the everyday believers’ conception of a God who created the universe, cares about humans who are His special creation, answers prayers and so on and so forth. He explicitly acknowledges that some conceptions of God do not have the sort of empirical implications that the more common conception of God has, and so his arguments have nothing to say about those conceptions of God. So even the arch-atheist boogeyman Richard Dawkins has never said that all possible conceptions of God are demonstrably false – and yet this is exactly the ridiculously overstated claim usually attributed to Dawkins, and to anyone who calls him or herself an atheist.
Honestly, I expect better than that from you, Merlijn.
Sorry I dont buy this atheism is just the abcence of theism stuff,take this site for example we have Mr.nuke meca Tingey who cant even bring himself to call Christ by his name!other comenters use terms such as God botherers to describe evangelicals how can that be just non theist,it seems like downright hostility to me!
You’re being a troll again, Richard. Either think before you type, or don’t type.
G.I dont know how I am being trollish?just because I point out that most atheists are hostile toward religion rather than neutral,maybe I shouldnt have singled out G.T but he seems like a fairly typical atheist I dont think he would dispute that.
‘G.T … seems like a fairly typical atheist’
What?
You don’t need to be an atheist to be hostile towards systemised religion. And vice versa. It’s frequently the case, but it isn’t necessary.
G:
“You claim that OB’s definition of atheism would incorporate agnosticism, then turn around and say that some agnostics believe in God.”
Now where did I do that?
What I did, in fact, state was that “the lack-of-knowledge argument underpinning the agnostic position leads, for the agnostic, to a rejection of theistic beliefs” which seems to pretty clearly indicate that I do not believe an agnostic position can incorporate theistic beliefs. I then made the point that “a fideist may combine a lack-of-knowability argument with religious faith” and on that basis speculated an agnostic (such as in this case Mark Vernon) might be more sympathetic to fideistic than to other varieties of religious faith.
At no point does this imply that some agnostic are fideists, or that some agnostics hold theistic beliefs.
So, I don’t think I made the “maneuver” you accuse me of.
Richard, you’re being trollish because you’re not paying attention. My point was about the literal minimal meaning of the word – of ‘weak atheism’, as G put it – not about what atheism can be taken to mean in practice or what some atheists are like.
Merlijn,
“There isn’t a “real” or “correct” meaning of atheist above and beyond the way the word is commonly used.”
Oh come on – surely you know perfectly well that it’s standard practice in argument to define terms carefully, and that that is a perfectly legitimate minimal definition of atheism. Surely you know perfectly well that argument is not obliged to adhere to the way any particular word ‘is commonly used,’ especially not if the word itself is at the center of the argument. Come on. You might as well say I can’t use ‘beg the question’ to mean anything other than ‘raise the question’ because a lot of chumps have taken to using it that way.
OB: I think any term used to define a philosophical position is legitimate as long as the position is well-defined. I just think that the “minimal definition” of atheism has some potential issues:
There’s basically the one that “atheism” has a meaning both in philosophical discourse and common usage. Note that the converse, “theism”, does not. “Agnosticism” probably does, to an extent. The conventional antinome of “atheist” is “religious believer” which is not quite synonymous with “theism” as a philosophical position (it’s possible to be a non-religious theist). Now, it’s perfectly possible to use “atheist” as a technical, philosophically informed term in a different way than it is used conventionally. But I insist that this is what’s being done if “atheism” is taken to encompass “weak atheism”, i.e. agnosticism. I note that many (though not all) atheist philosophers are doing precisely that – fine. But it will result in bona fide confusion among people unaware of the usage of the term among sophisticated atheists. The narrow meaning of the term is not just the result of a re-definition by anti-atheists.
Note that agnosticism (again, as conventionally used) does not merely imply “lack of knowledge”, but rather “lack of belief on the basis of a professed lack of knowledge”. The word, again, means more than its components. The broad definition of atheism would either necessitate incorporating agnosticism – but that leads you into a potentially conflict with those who call themselves agnosticists and have reasons for it. Or you find a distinguishing factor. There may be one. Of attitude towards theistic claims, for example.
But that bears a risk of bringing us back to square one: if we define “agnostic” as “professes no knowledge on the existence of God; does not actively believe in God while remaining neutral on the existence question”; then we would almost have to define “atheist” as “does not actively believe in God while inclined to reject existence” which is tantamount to bringing us back to strong atheism.
There’s another issue. “Atheist” can be both regarded as a philosophical term and as an identity marker. The problem here is that the group of people calling themselves “atheists” as a marker of identity are, I would argue, bound by a number of features other than professed lack of belief. There are associated beliefs, claims and attitudes (about the nature of science, the relationship between matter and mind, about claims concerning the paranormal, etc.) in play here. You may argue that this is a good reason not to use “atheist” as an identity marker. But it is nonetheless being used as such. To wit, there are a lot of PoMo relativist atheists. Of course, they’re atheists. But they tend not to be the kind of atheists you discuss definitions of atheism with.
What I’m getting at is this. I am, as you might guess, more sympathetic to strong atheism than to weak atheism. Because strong atheism is more likely to be explicitly philosophically grounded and bring interesting associated claims with it than weak atheism. It also means, obviously, that it is more open to potential attack. But this is not a bad thing at all; second, it goes the other way around as well: I think that a strong atheist position is more likely to bring forward interesting arguments against theism than a weak atheist/agnostic position. Because I’m perfectly well-aware that strong atheism is not provable beyond making a reasonable case for it (and I would deem a reasonable case can be made for both strong atheism and theism). I’m also aware that some theists (Richard in this thread) have a tendency to set such demands for atheism, and strongly disagree with them. I do not believe it is reasonable to set the bar so high for any metaphysical beliefs. And I think it’s perfectly allowable to hold a belief in an “I am inclined to think that…” manner or a “I do not know but I believe that…” manner – provided that the holder remains aware that s/he may turn out to be mistaken.
So, I’m a lot more hostile towards agnosticism – which often seems to incorporate a certain lack of commitment, a “of course God is nonsense but the rituals are kind of cute” kind of attitude, than to strong atheism. And I do not believe the latter need to include any kind of purported proof, or certainty – at the most, “reasoned argument”.
And I think the crux of the matter is one of attitude towards metaphysical claims, and scepticism towards them. I suspect that some “weak atheists” at least would reject “strong atheism” because of the lack of conceivable evidence for the non-existence of God. Which implies beliefs about what constitutes evidence, how beliefs are justified, etc. And these are the interesting questions. Is there something like epistemic “minimalism” and “maximalism”? If so, I think I’m more sympathetic to the latter one – which I think is a difference between us rather more fundamental than the theist/atheist one.
Merlijn, I did misunderstand the cited passage. But the reason for my understanding was the very idiosyncratic definitions you were using, which confused me. In fact, I think you are introducing confusions left and right by using very idiosyncratic definitions – which remain idiosyncratic no matter how many times you insist that they are “conventional.”
So let’s start with exactly that. You say: Note that agnosticism (again, as conventionally used) does not merely imply “lack of knowledge”, but rather “lack of belief on the basis of a professed lack of knowledge”.
As “conventionally used” by whom, besides yourself? As far as I know, since Huxley coined the word and forward, agnostic has meant “lack of knowledge,” period. An agnostic is one who does not claim to know whether or not there is a God. Since not long after Huxley introduced the term, some thoughtful believers have called themselves agnostics because they meet Huxley’s definition: They do not know and they admit that they do not know – but they choose to believe and to act from that belief anyway. I have encountered several people who either believe in God or actually follow a religious practice who call themselves agnostics, and they do so because it fits their own understanding of the difference between believing and knowing. In fact, it is extraordinarily common for practicing Jews – and even many rabbis – to be explicitly agnostic, to say that no one can KNOW whether G-d exists. “Fideist” is a bit of theology jargon that (I think) captures this SUBSET of agnostics, but it’s not a good move to break that subset of agnostics off and say they aren’t agnostics anymore. If they meet the traditional definition of agnosticism and they call themselves agnostics, you are introducing massive confusions by saying they aren’t really agnostics. Your definition is not conventional, it is convention-defying.
As to the problems you cite with using the minimal definition of atheism, i.e. weak atheism, I think you’re simply wrong for the following reasons:
Firstly, any conclusion you draw about how one should define atheism based on the definition of agnosticism you offered don’t wash for the reasons given above. Changing the standard definition of atheism to suit your idiosyncratic re-definition of agnosticism only magnifies the confusion you have introduced. Also, you are defying the principle of charity I mentioned in my previous post if you attribute the stronger claim to people who self-identify as atheists without finding out for certain that they actually make the stronger claim (and which stronger claims they make!). By saying that “atheism” really means “strong atheism,” you are making just such an ungrounded attribution to everyone who says they are an atheist.
Secondly, you make an empirical claim that seems pretty obviously false: The conventional antinome of “atheist” is “religious believer” which is not quite synonymous with “theism” as a philosophical position (it’s possible to be a non-religious theist).
Again, you appeal to a convention that doesn’t appear to exist. If you ask ANYONE who speaks English reasonably well whether someone who believes in God (whether or not they adhere to a specific religion) is the opposite of an atheist, they would surely say YES! Moreover, it is quite possible to be a religious believer and not believe in the existence of God as such. For example, Buddhists are religious believers, or at least religious adherents. Yet many of them are atheists or non-believing agnostics, and many more have such vague and tentative beliefs about the divine that they would hesitate to say they believe in God in any conventional sense. So only in the most unconsidered, ultra-casual sense would someone think that the natural opposite of “atheist” is “religious believer.” And surely when conducting any sort of serious discussion, we want to use words that are clearly rather than oh-so-casually defined.
As to the stuff about people who use the label “atheist” for themselves… You don’t call yourself an atheist, Merlijn. And as far as I know, you don’t do empirical research on the attitudes, beliefs, demographics and so on of those who do call themselves atheists. So perhaps when self-identified atheists are explicitly and repeatedly telling you something about the attitudes and beliefs of atheists, you might want to take what they say seriously instead of insisting on your own assertions about them. Just a thought.
So now I’m sowing confusion through my “idiosyncratic” usage of the word “agnostic” (which actually is shared by two other commenters on this thread)?
Did a quick dictionary trawl. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s and OED are on your side; Heritage and Merriam-Webster include some kind of disinclination to religious belief as a possible meaning. The “Dictionary of the History Ideas” on the web discusses both possibilities before rejecting the possibility of “theistic agnostics” before stating that “We shall then take agnosticism to be the more limited claim that we either do not or cannot know that God or any other transcendent reality or state exists and thus we should suspend judgment concerning the assertion that God exists.” And then there’s J.J.C. Smart’s article in the Stanford Encyclopedia on “Atheism and Agnosticism” which does not really go into agnosticism rather than defining atheism qua strong atheism. And it appears, judging from the (confused) Wikipedia entries on agnosticism and agnostic theism, that the author quoted in OB’s original post held agnosticism to entail lack of a belief in God, i.e. weak atheism.
I’m not at all unhappy with the concept of fideists as agnostic theists. And I’m perfectly OK with being educated on philosophically more convenient usage of terms. Just don’t accuse me of being idiosyncratic here.
Two of your cited sources seem to be with me 100% on the definition of “agnostic,” and two more list alternate possible meanings in addition to the central traditional meaning. And the final definition is clearly at least partly stipulative (“We shall then take…”), a definition advanced for the purpose of advancing a particular discussion or argument, rather than a lexical (usage-based) definition. So on that count, I have to say you’re being at least a little idiosyncratic. ;-)
One also must take Smart’s definition of “atheism” as stipulative rather than lexical: He starts by admitting that atheism and agnosticism are overlapping terms not easily delineated in practice – Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance” concepts – and declares that he intends to differentiate them before proceeding to do so. In other words, lexically (in actual use) these words are defined in an overlapping sense, but for philosophical purposes I (Smart) don’t want them to overlap, so I’m going to define them in a way that wholly separates them (no matter how much they overlap and muddle together in common usage).
The point of saying that your definitions are idiosyncratic is not that no one else ever uses such definitions, but that you cannot insist they are the “conventional” definition when they are not. If you want to stipulate them, by all means stipulate them – but don’t expect anything but confusion to result if you aren’t very careful and explicit that you are offering a particular definition for the purpose at hand. If you insist that the particular definitions you find useful and clear for your own purposes are “conventional” when they aren’t actually the convention – whether because there are multiple different definitions which turn out to be “conventional” in different contexts, or because you just have a mistaken impression of how the words are normally used – you are generating unnecessary confusion.
But there’s another problem at work here, which you haven’t addressed or even acknowledged. You’ve (twice) ignored my point that you are making an unwarranted attribution of a stronger-than-necessary claim to every atheist when you insist that the “conventional” definition of atheism is strong atheism, whereby everyone who calls him or herself an atheist is assumed to be a strong atheist. You can stipulate that “atheism” means strong atheism when you use it, but you cannot stipulate what the word means when other people use it. That atheists typically mean “strong atheism” when they say use the term “atheism” is an empirical claim, and not one that is obviously true.
Moreover, your stipulation is bound to tick people off. You noted yourself that words like “atheist” and “agnostic” are not just concepts, that people use them as self-labels, as markers of identity. But you seem to have missed a rather obvious consequence of that: If I identify as an atheist (and I do), and you tell me that the word “atheism” means something other than I take it to mean on a daily basis, you come off as if you’re telling me what I think, as if you know better than me. That’s pretty naturally going to piss me off (and it did, a little) – and for no readily apparent purpose.
Besides the part where you insist that atheism really usually means strong atheism, you also said this: …the group of people calling themselves “atheists” as a marker of identity are, I would argue, bound by a number of features other than professed lack of belief. There are associated beliefs, claims and attitudes (about the nature of science, the relationship between matter and mind, about claims concerning the paranormal, etc.) in play here.
Did you even notice that you were telling more than one self-declared atheist what self-declared atheists think? In the context of disputing the definition of atheism offered by atheists – and with you not being an atheist yourself – doesn’t it strike you that this is perhaps a bit presumptuous and tendentious?
It may be the case that a typical atheist has certain other conceptual commitments – with regard to atheism itself, and also with regard to related supernatural claims, science, the paranormal, epistemology, empirical evidence, etc. – that extend well beyond weak atheism. The problem is, I’m not sure there IS a “typical atheist”: There are many different possible other conceptual commitments associated with atheism, and any given atheist might agree on some, disagree on others, and have never thought about still others. The only commitment all atheists necessarily share is weak atheism – so that is clearly what we ought to treat the word “atheism” as meaning when talking about atheists generally.
This diversity of commitments that atheists may or may not embrace also makes your discussion about metaphysical commitments and sympathies far too broad. I think you should ask what a particular atheist thinks about these issues before you make any judgments about what philosophical concerns interest or compel them. It might surprise you how much (or little) epistemological and metaphysical thought has gone into any given individual’s atheism, weak or strong.
G: I’ve been aware that not all atheists who call themselves such are strong atheists for quite some time now. There’s a difference between criticizing the usage of a certain term and imputing beliefs to people on the basis of a divergent understanding of a term.
Did you even notice that you were telling more than one self-declared atheist what self-declared atheists think? In the context of disputing the definition of atheism offered by atheists – and with you not being an atheist yourself – doesn’t it strike you that this is perhaps a bit presumptuous and tendentious?
Not in that context. I should have made the point more subtle, but I don’t see how the statement that (prototypically) people to whom “atheist” is precisely a marker of identity used in distinction to theist, religious, etc. tend to share certain beliefs concerning science, reason, the relationship between mind and matter, how that all would be tantamount to telling atheists what to think. It’s certainly possible to be an atheist idealist – but I don’t think there are many of them around. There’s quite a few postmodernist atheists, but I don’t think they would regard the moniker “atheist” as particularly meaningful or important.
Now, to the extent “atheist” is used as a marker of identity distinguishing a certain group of people with shared attitudes, beliefs, etc. I would not dare to comment on the precise definition of “atheist”. It’s just that – to the extent this is being done! – I think it’s a bad moniker for a group identity. Since I’m perfectly well-aware that “atheist” (particularly with the weak definition) is logically compatible with a host of different beliefs and attitudes.
But there’s a slightly different issue if the definition of “atheist” as a technical philosophical term is discussed. I do not see why my being a theist should preclude me from commenting on that.
I certainly wasnt trying to be trollish O.B. but If I was again sorry!my only point was that words dont mean there original meaning for instance when I grew up gay meant happy.
Some of this discussion has been in terms of how much disbelief in the existence of gods is required to make one an atheist, whereas the defining feature, or so it vaguely seems to me, is one’s refusal to revere and worship gods. You either revere them or you don’t. This could leave a group whom I’d call apatheists who have never thought about these matters at all.
It is possible to believe in the existence of a god but choose not to worship on the basis of divine nastiness, incompetence, irrelevance, or for other less rational reasons. Whether anyone actually believes in the existence of gods while refusing to worship, I don’t know.
Being no great thinker myself, I’d be interested in comments from sharper intellects such as G or OB on whether reverence is a better defining feature or just another of my embarrassing brain-farts.
G.T. I would agree with you on some of what you say about evengelicals ect,but I cant grasp why you seem so hostile toward Christ himself,its not his fault that some of his supporters are p.i.t.a.also why dont you use the chaps name(just curious)?
G:
Thing the first: Using the word “atheism” in the strong sense instead of the weak to describe atheists.
But where did I do that? I have argued for that usage, yes. But I’m well enough aware that usage is rejected by, for example, OB. It’s not the first time the issue came up. So around here I’m circumspect with my own deployment of the word “atheist”.
How are these things connected? Seems to me that you are saying that the reason for taking the word “atheism” to mean strong atheism is those shared beliefs, but as far as I can see that move is completely unmotivated. You appear to assume that the connection is so obvious you don’t need to actually explain it, whereas I don’t see any connection at all.
That has nothing to do with the point I was making. The context of that point was the usage of “atheist” as an identity marker. It had nothing to do with the “strong” and “weak” definitions of atheism. Note especially that in the original context I made the point, I wrote: The problem here is that the group of people calling themselves “atheists” as a marker of identity are, I would argue, bound by a number of features other than professed lack of belief. Which implies weak, not strong atheism!
So I pretty much agree with the points you make in the ensuing paragraph. But I at no point argued anything to the contrary!
So if you go around saying that strong atheism is amongst the things most self-identified atheists agree on…
I never said anything of the kind! I’ve been arguing about definitions and demarcations between such terms as atheist, agnostics. This does not in any manner relate to my beliefs about what self-identified atheists agree on.
To clarify:
Larry argues that the word “Communist” should be reserved for those who support a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.
Sal, a self-defined Communist, disagrees, and points out why.
Now, it should be obvious that at no point Larry’s argument entails “Sal supports a revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.”
Not an embarrassing brain-fart at all, Kiwi Dave; on the contrary, interesting. I often ponder (for instance) the fact that if someone suddenly produced evidence that God as commonly understood does exist, I would be absolutely riven with horror. I couldn’t possibly revere the bastard – so I’d be facing an eternity of torture. Oh how nice. No escape; suicide of no avail. Then I ponder the fact that Samuel Johnson, for one, actually literally believed exactly that – and I quail at the thought of all the misery this one idea has produced.
Apatheists were very common in the backwoods of the early US. There are accounts by traveling preachers who kept meeting people who’d never so much as heard of the bible or Jesus and couldn’t have cared less.
Anyway I think you’re right about reverence – and I think the idea of reverence itself can tend to create or prompt the belief (maybe that’s what you were getting at). First one thinks that reverence is a good thing, then one decides there must be something to revere, then one decides that might as well be ‘god’. In a way that’s what’s going on with all those people who say atheists lack a sense of wonder etc etc – as if having a sense of wonder somehow entails believing there is a god.
That’s part of the coercive aspect of contemporary aggressive theism – the idea that it’s shallow and wicked to lack reverence, therefore God exists. There’s a supposed moral imperative to be reverent which in some mysterious way creates the thing that is supposed to be revered. A tad circular, but never mind.
Thanks for clearing up that confusion, Merlijn. But if you go on about these two things which are completely separate in the same post, in the same flow of argument, you can hardly blame anyone else for the resulting confusion. You disputed the usefulness and aptness of using the weak atheist definition for “atheism,” then went on in the next paragraph to talk about those who self-identify as atheists and their common beliefs. I believe you when you say no direct connection was intended – but for goodness sakes, no wonder I was confused!
Kiwi Dave: I think you’re on to something. I recall a long discussion about faith in one of these threads that gets to the heart of the matter more precisely. Faith is as much (or more) an attitude towards one’s belief as a method of arriving at beliefs. You can see it in the ad hoc excuses or outright self-deception people engage in to keep believing when a given specific faith belief is shown to be dubious or outright false. (To wit, creationism.) I think “reverence” is as good a word as any for that attitude towards what is believed as a matter of faith rather than reason.
Richard: Even the existence of Jesus as a historical person is an article of faith rather than a conclusion of evidence and reason. Insisting on respect for this figure who may be entirely mythical, or at the very least has been heavily mythologized and altered to fit the role assigned him by believers, is very much like insisting on respect for Hercules and his Twelve Labours. And, by the way, Yeshua bar Joseph would in fact BE his proper name. Christians hate admitting that their Saviour was a rabble-rousing Jewish radical rabbi – but that’s exactly what he is portrayed as EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOLY BOOK! Don’t let Christianity’s long history of anti-Semitism confuse the fact that Jesus, if a specific preacher by that name actually existed at the specified place and time, was almost certainly addressed as “Rebbi Yeshua” by his followers.
More generally (Richard is not the only one to say this), the insistence that weak atheism is the same as agnosticism fails for two reasons.
Firstly, as I’ve already pointed out, many believers call themselves agnostics – they claim that it may be impossible to KNOW, but they still BELIEVE. Since atheists in either the weak or strong sense lack any belief in God (et cetera), they simply cannot be the same.
Secondly, agnosticism as originally defined by Huxley has a very strong claim at its heart, that it is in principle impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. But that claim rests on some potentially very problematic definitions of “proof” and “God.” In contrast, most atheists (weak or strong) believe that some conceptions of God are quite vulnerable to falsification based on evidence and reasoning, unless one either (a) sets a wildly unreasonable standard for what constitutes “proof,” or (b) the definition of God is deliberately kept slippery and changes every time one set of claims about God have been shown to be false.
The distinction between weak and strong atheism often boils down to just how broad a definition of God/the supernatural one considers vulnerable to criticism of this sort, and what one thinks constitutes sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion rather than withholding judgment. Most weak atheists reject the agnostic’s “impossibility of knowledge” claim, but they still think that there are not enough convincing arguments to move from “I lack belief in any God or gods” to “I believe that no God or gods exist.” (Notice I say “most.” Some weak atheists may in fact just be agnostics. But most aren’t.)
Finally, Richard: You’ve said that Jesus himself appearing to an atheist wouldn’t be enough to convince him, but in turn I ask you a few questions. What would it take to convince YOU that God is just a silly made-up human idea? And do you believe that everyone who claims to have seen or spoken to Jesus is making an accurate claim, or do you think that maybe some of them (or indeed, most of them) were hallucinating? Your criticism that an atheist might reject an apparition of Jesus as an hallucination doesn’t really wash if you admit that people sometimes do hallucinate, now does it? (And you’d be pretty silly not to admit it.)
This is where reverence comes in. I have no attitude of reverence or sacredness or specialness associated with my atheist beliefs. If there were any good arguments why I should alter my beliefs, I would. But there are no such good arguments, only lots of oft-repeated bad, bad arguments. (If I hear any variation on Pascal’s Wager one more time, I’m going to become violent.) In contrast, it is very clear that the vast majority of believers are not willing to even consider changing their beliefs based on any arguments whatsoever, and do not regularly consider arguments at all – which is the point of the Smith quotation that sparked this thread, after all. And when presented with arguments to reject some faith belief, believers either outright ignore those arguments, or they engage in various forms of double-talk, meaningless ad hoc alterations to their position, or otherwise use any tactic available (self-deception, simply accepting cognitive dissonance or logical contradiction, appeals to emotion, etc.) to preserve the beliefs towards which they have this attitude of reverence.
And Richard: Religion has no NECESSARY connection to morality. Religious people who insist that there can be no morality without God are just being anti-atheist bigots. That is, they are declaring “You must be immoral because you do not believe in God,” without regard to any actual evidence about the moral ideas and actions of atheists. Don’t fall for that rhetoric, Richard.
Boy, there sure was a lot posted this morning to respond to!
Good responce G. to answer your question I am agnostic myself but I cant bring myself to deny that he she or it could exist(I seem to get less certain about this stuff as I get older) I do believe that there is a lot of value in the teachings of Christ although I dont buy the claim of his divinity.
I certainly agree that there are many ideas of value in the teachings of Christ. Problem is, the ideas of value are common to lots and lots of teachings, and in Christian tradition those ideas of value are attached to a whole lot of ideas that are of questionable or obviously negative value. I’ll stick with the teachings of Gautama Buddha instead, or at least this particular teaching: “Believe nothing anyone says, not even what I say, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.” Not a perfect statement of principle (and probably not an exact quotation/translation, because I’m working from memory), but it strikes me as a generally very good place to start.
Cheers!
G
I thought it was “Jeebis”.