"the word 'atheist' has, in the present context, to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence...of God.... But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read [the] same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in...words as ‘amoral’.... In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist.
—The Presumption of Atheism (emphasis mine)
If this "unusual way" of defining the word 'atheist' is accepted—despite the fact that such a definition is otherwise engaged—we need:
1) a new term for a person with sufficient philosophical fortitude to make the positive claim, and
2) a new definition for the word 'agnostic'.
After we come to agreement on terms, we can then address why those atheists who have retreated to the meeker agnostic position still want to retain the bolder label? I think William Lane Craig has the answer:
"If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities."
So is there a God or not? Theists answer yes. Atheists answer no. Those who defer are agnostic. Which are you? Why say one thing when you mean another?
14 comments:
it's a matter of semantics for most of us. Theists who argue/debate with atheists often assume atheism is a belief system with all of the associated bits that would entail. I guess this is because many thists beliefs form such a central part of their lives that they can not understand how having no belief would work - it should leave a "hole" that needs to be filled with non-belief.
That is not how (my) atheism works. I do not believe in the Christian God in the same way that I do not believe in fairies, ghosts, unicorns, dragons, Zeus, Buddah or Xenu.
Unless someone mentions them to me in a conversation, they have no place in my life at all. I do not "actively" disbelieve in them, in the way that theists "actively" believe in something (they think of it each day, during normal tasks, they relate their lives t thier beliefs, they refer to a code of beliefs when making decisions etc). I merely do not believe they exist.
Of course any discussion like this runs into immediate problems because the term "atheists" is like the term "theists". It covers an AWFUL lot of different beliefs. No theist would try to generalise what ALL thiests believe, but atheists are supposed to be able to do exactly that! I can only tell you about my own brand of atheism.
Therefore although I believe that God does not exist, becasue I have no reason to believe otherwise, I prefer to say that I do not believe God exists because I have seen no substantive evidence to support that hypothesis.
...many theists...can not understand how having no belief would work - it should leave a "hole" that needs to be filled with non-belief.
This is not about the theist's limited ability to comprehend subtleties of epistemology. It's about words having distinct meanings and using them properly.
...the term "atheists" is like the term "theists". It covers an AWFUL lot of different beliefs.
People who are theists do indeed believe a lot of different things, but the one belief they share is that God exists; that's why they are called theists.
Therefore although I believe that God does not exist..I prefer to say that I do not believe God exists.
If you "believe that God does not exist" why do you prefer to say something different? Why the duplicity? That's my question. Is it the reason Craig proposes or something else?
Please don't read any animosity into by adversarial-type questions, juggling mother. I'm glad you stopped by and I appreciate your contribution and hope this is just the first of many.
I tend to oscilate between not believing in God and believing that He does not exist. They are different but associated beliefs.
Like JM my belief is based on a total (and I do mean total) lack of evidence to support the idea that God exists - and I know this will bring up (yet again) the whole argument about what constitutes evidence). I'll address this in a post on my Blog shortly.
But anyway.... Certainly some atheists are unhappy with that word.. I mean a-theist... a non-believer in God. I am an atheist... but I'm also an a-ghostist, an a-fairyist and so on... These terms are silly which is why I've just made them up. There probably *is* a word that desrcibes someone who doesn't believe in ghosts but I have no idea what it is - because such terms aren't used... and yet here we have a-theism.
In common usage we basically have three postions on the issue (not counting the uncounted who just don't give a fig) being theism - those who believe, atheism - those who don't and agnosticism - those who cannot see a way to answer the God Question either way.
But what we are talking about here are beliefs and labels. I am more than happy labelling myself an atheist and being labelled by others as such. For me the name carries none of the 'bad' undertones that some people associate with it. Being an atheist doesn't make me immoral or emotionless. I don't hate God or worship the Devil. I don't beat my dog or cheat on my taxes. I just don't believe in an idea that many other people do believe in. I'm an atheist.
...and yet here we have a-theism
It's not silly to have words for things or ideas. It's quite necessary don't you think? But they lose value if you don't use them correctly.
I can understand not brandishing one's atheism (syntactically or semantically) in certain public situations or around certain people. The atheists I know personally are fine people and as moral as the next person. I think they have no rational basis for their morality, but they are moral nonetheless.
I'll address [the lack of evidence to support the idea that God exists] in a post on my Blog shortly.
I look forward to reading your argument. Hopefully it won't have naturalism as a premise or conclude that the spiritual does not exist because it is not physically expressed. That would not be very convincing to me.
laughing boy said: I can understand not brandishing one's atheism (syntactically or semantically) in certain public situations or around certain people.
Never bothered me. If the subject comes up I'm more than happy to 'go public' about my beliefs. The only time I've been in the minority was when we had a visiting theologian @ College and I was dragged along by a girl I was interested in. When asked my opinion on the evening I gave it (in those days I was an outspoken even militant atheist) and quickly got into a heated debate with upto 15-20 Christians. It was great fun!
laughing boy said: The atheists I know personally are fine people and as moral as the next person. I think they have no rational basis for their morality, but they are moral nonetheless.
Yup, some of my best friends are Christians too [grin]. I was amused at the implication that an irrational belief in God is a rational basis for morality.... but anyway...
laughing boy said: I look forward to reading your argument. Hopefully it won't have naturalism as a premise or conclude that the spiritual does not exist because it is not physically expressed. That would not be very convincing to me.
That doesn't surprise me. I'm not sure what I'm going to say yet. I'll have a go at it tomorrow afternoon and see what words and arguments hit the 'paper'. I might mention my lack of belief in the spiritual though....... I look forward to your comments... though I fully expect to remain unconvinced as to the existence of God - unless you have evidence or argument that I haven't come across yet?
"People who are theists do indeed believe a lot of different things, but the one belief they share is that God exists"
Yes, but what God? A christian is a theist, as is a Jew and a muslim. They all believe in a single omnipotent God in one way or aother, and can generally be lumped together for the broader parts of the theim/atheism aruments.
But a Buddist is a theist, so is a Hindu, they believe in a pantheon of Gods.
As I would use the term, a scientologist is a theist, as is Giaist, or a wiccan, as they all belive in a higher power. - you may nit agree with that definition, but then again, I may not agree with your definition of what an atheists is!
To try and say atheists/theists believe is an imposibility. The chinese are all (nearly) atheists according to both their law and the general understanding of the term. But since their whole cultural belief system is based around spirits and spiritulism I could not possible say that my athiest beliefs are similar in any way to theirs!
Buddists aren't theists JM...
But the rest of your argument holds true!
Yes, but what God?
It doesn't matter for the discussion at hand.
I see your point if you think that, by 'God', I mean one particular view of the 'supreme supernatural power' concept, but you're taking the discussion to another level with such distinctions.
"Buddists aren't theists JM..."
Thanks for prooving my point CK:-) Under my definition of theism they are theists. they believe in something other/more than here. They believe in a higher/greater power. Therefore they are obviously not atheists in my understanding of the term. Nor ore they theist in yours. And thy definitely don't count as agnostics. So they are.......?
Laughing Boy's point is that the definition of Atheist varies with whom you speak to. he wants to tie it down so he can counter the claims of each section of Athism. he is falling into the exact trap that I said so many theists fall into, in seeing atheism as a branch of a single faith, with defined belief systems and structures and reaons.
There have been attempts to define the types ofatheism into at least broad stereotypes - strong atheism (the positive belief in the non-existance) and weak atheism (the negative non-belief of existance) have been used, but are rarely used outside of philosophical debate by either side:-)
Of course, part of the problem is that many atheists have never spent much time thinking about it. How long has Laughing boy spent considering exactly why he does not believe in Leprechauns and how he would prove/explain that belief system to another person? Espcially one that thinks that every coin he owns is made by leprechauns who have to put a pot of them at the end of each rainbow they make, and is convinced that is true becuase of the many written works about leprechauns that have been around for thousends of years, the numerous sightings throughout history...... I suppose if he struck up a freindship with leprechaun believer, he might start thinking about it a bit, but really, it's just obvious isn't it? He's never seen a leprechaun, or known anyone who has proof that they have. he's fairly certain that his coins were made at the mint, and rainbows are made because the sunlight bends through the rain drops (although, no he can not make a rainbow on demand - and leprechaun man does not see the connection between a prism splitting electric light and a rainbow in the sky).
Except when I come visiting blogs, God has just as much impact on my life and my thought processes as leprechauns do on Laughing Boy's (I expect - I am making an assumption here about LB's beliefs).
I seem to have rambled off the point a bit:-) Basically, I think LB is finding it difficult to define exactly what "atheist" means because it covers an enormous variety of meanings - many of which may be almost directly opposing others.
"If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view"
One has to ask - why?
Why should the average atheist (ie not a philosopher/writer of atheist treaty's etc) shoulder any responsibility to prove something dos not exist? have you shouldered the rsponsibility to prove that unicorns do not exist to every person you meet? or that Santa is not real - even when you meet the many people who honestly believe that he is? is it your responsibility to prove them wrong? is it your responsibility to prove to all those alien believers that aliens do not exist (or, if you are a believer, that they do!)? And if so, why are you not out there, arguing on every alien abduction blog you can find? There are an awful lot of them!
there are some atheists that write and speak and generally try to prove their view to the rest of the world. just as there are some theists in each religion that do so. But not the general masses. We lessor mortals tend to not have the time or will:-) I am happy to discuss my views and my reasons for them, and to listen to yours when I come online - but it is not my "responsibility" to prove anything to you, nor you to me, just because I have said that is what i think.
"Therefore although I believe that God does not exist..I prefer to say that I do not believe God exists.
If you "believe that God does not exist" why do you prefer to say something different? Why the duplicity? That's my question"
In answer to your question - the reason i prefer to say it in ine way rather than the other is because theists understand the word "believe" to mean a positive act. So if I say I believe he does not exist they assume (generalisations here) that I actively think about his non-existance all the time, in everything I do. To me, the phrases mean pretty much the same thing, but I have found tht many others find it hard to grasp the concept of non-active beliefs, so i say what makes sense to them.
...he wants to tie it down so he can counter the claims of each section of Atheism.
That's not what I'm doing in this post. Even if I were I don't see the problem. If I can counter the claims of atheism—not someone else's version, but your own—then you've got some thinking to do. But, again, I haven't done that yet in this post and I'm not going to.
There have been attempts to define the types of atheism into at least broad stereotypes...but are rarely used outside of philosophical debate by either side:-)
Isn't that what this is?
God has just as much impact on my life and my thought processes as leprechauns do on Laughing Boy's (I expect - I am making an assumption here about LB's beliefs).
This assumption is correct. I believe leprechauns, unicorns, and Santa do not exist; a positive epistemic claim.
Basically, I think LB is finding it difficult to define exactly what "atheist" means because it covers an enormous variety of meanings - many of which may be almost directly opposing others.
If a word can have simultaneous contradictory meanings is it any wonder I'm having trouble defining it?
Why should the average atheist (ie not a philosopher/writer of atheist treaty's etc) shoulder any responsibility to prove something does not exist?
Because the consequences are just as important for average people as they are for philosophers, and because atheism is not a valid default position. The vast majority of people today and throughout history—including many of the most brilliant—have believed in God, so, at least in that regard, the assertion that "There is no God" is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that "There is a God." The first assertion requires justification just as the second does. That's why agnosticism is philosophically safer; well, not safer, easier.
...have you shouldered the responsibility to prove that unicorns do not exist to every person you meet? or that Santa is not real - even when you meet the many people who honestly believe that he is?
I've never met any; at least not anybody over the age of 10 (or otherwise developmentally disabled). That's why the Unicorn/Santa/God comparison is so ridiculous.
I am happy to discuss my views and my reasons for them, and to listen to yours when I come online...
I'm thankful for that.
...but it is not my "responsibility" to prove anything to you.
Where have I asked you to prove anything? I'm asking people 1) what label they claim for themselves, 2) if their definition of that label matches the standard definition, and 3) if not why not. Nothing else.
...theists understand the word "believe" to mean a positive act.
Only theists think this?
So if I say I believe [God] does not exist they assume...that I actively think about his non-existance all the time, in everything I do.
I don't think that. I hope you don't constantly ponder the things you think don't exist. In this post I'm not interested in your day-to-day thoughts, but something very specific.
To me, the phrases mean pretty much the same thing, but I have found that many others find it hard to grasp the concept of non-active beliefs, so i say what makes sense to them.
Beliefs are one thing; how active they are is another. For the issue I've raised in this post it's not how often or for how long you think about God that matters, but what you think when you do.
P.S.: I wish Santa did exist. Then I wouldn't be broke every January. Just in case, may I have an iPhone?
laughing boy said: Because the consequences are just as important for average people as they are for philosophers, and because atheism is not a valid default position.
What consequences? If you're talking about God's wrath & eternity in Hell because we've turned our backs on God then you're barking up the wrong tree. As atheists do not believe in God we can hardly worry about how our beliefs affect his stance towards us - nor can we concern ourselves with our ultimate dwelling place after we die!
BTW - Atheism *is* a valid default position. Why wouldn't it be?
laughing boy said: The vast majority of people today and throughout history—including many of the most brilliant—have believed in God.
...and your point is? Many people throughout History have believed in many things - which normally turned out to be false. Throughout most of recording History people did *not* worship the Christian God. He's a pretty new invention (as is Monotheism in general). Most people have worshiped a huge variety of Gods & Goddesses - does this mean that Hathor, Zeus & Odin all existed (or still exist somewhere). Does the fact that large numbers of - often intelligent people - believe in something have any bearing on the truth of that belief? I don't think so. Also, as I said before, belief (or otherwise) has *nothing* to do with the intelligence of the believer. Just because a genious believes something doesn't make it true. To err is human after all...
laughing boy said: the assertion that "There is no God" is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that "There is a God." The first assertion requires justification just as the second does.
Correct - which is why I never say such things (or if I do they're a slip of the keyboard). I can easily say that I do not *believe* in God. I can even say that I believe that God does not exist - though this is more difficult to justify. What I cannot say with confidence is that God does not exist or that there is no God. To make such a statement with confidence would demand a great deal more knowledge of the Universe than anyone now holds. God may indeed exist - it's just that I don't believe it.
laughing boy said: That's why agnosticism is philosophically safer; well, not safer, easier.
I can certainly understand the Agnostic position. As far as I know they believe that the God Question is not a type of question that *can* be answered. I disagree. Therefore I do not regard myself as an Agnostic.
BTW - I posted something on the evidence if you want to pop by and comment on it.
Post a Comment