Often, atheists will claim that atheism is not a positive claim, but rather a lack of belief in gods. Such a position is merely negative, and doesn't tell us what the person actually thinks about the God question. This can be shown by looking at the possible positions one can take when one hears about gods:
1. Gods exist
2. Gods do not exist
3. I don't know
4. No one knows
5. I don't care
6. Etc.
By saying that they "merely" lack belief, they are saying that they are not 1.
OK, that tells us what the atheist is not, but not what he is. By saying "not 1", the atheist still needs to clarify which one he is, 2 through 6. But if he would just tell us which one he is right off the bat, that would then entail not 1, and so there is no reason to start with not 1.
An atheist can be a combination, can't he? I don't believe that there's a god, but I also don't know (whether there is a god or not), and I am beginning to believe that it isn't possible to know. So I identify with 2, 3, and 5. Does that make me irrational or uncritical?
ReplyDeleteYou can add to the list, although it sounds like you are just a 3 leaning toward a 5.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that describing yourself as merely lacking belief, as most atheists seem to do, is useless because it is too broad. Someone who lacks belief could believe God doesn't exist, not know, not care, etc.
I would imagine that most atheists would identify with 2,3, and 5. But the question of certainty and belief is not the point. The frustrating part about this subject is precisely this "lack of belief" business. Austin Cline tells us "being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist- all that's required is not affirming a proposition made by others"
ReplyDeleteIsn't that just a little shifty? Sure, the "lack of belief" thing could apply to someone has never heard of God/s, lets say a Chinese Taoist of the distant past. Such a person is not really an atheist but is truly an agnostic- he literally lacks knowledge. An atheist is, as everyone knows, someone who is familiar with a proposition and then says I REJECT it.
It all comes down to the false notion that atheism is "basic" and represents the "default" position. It's easy to win an argument when you have arbitrarily decided that your position is true by "default". No argument necessary. Amusing that.
@Chris
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to reject something to not believe it. That's why the Chinese Taoist is really an atheist.
There was a time where I didn't reject a certain god but still wasn't able to believe in him.
That's why I think that it is a bad idea to try to define atheism as the rejection of god claims cause than you still would have to define a new word which describes not believing in god(s).
Not believing something without valid evidence/reason is the default position for everything in our life. Why should the believe in
god(s) be different?
"...although it sounds like you are just a 3 leaning toward a 5."
ReplyDeleteBut I don't believe God exists; I'm an atheist, not an agnostic. So I am a 2 also.
"The point is that describing yourself as merely lacking belief, as most atheists seem to do, is useless because it is too broad."
But beliefs can be/are broad and messy, are they not? So your insistence that atheists must narrow it down to only one of your categories has more to do with your own wishes/needs, rather than any necessity – logical or otherwise – that atheists must conform to. It seems as if you're kind of begging the question here: you're suggesting atheism must be something like a strictly defined philosophical stance rather than a 'mere' lack of belief - by insisting that atheism must conform to the rules necessary for it to be a strictly defined philosophical stance.
A •belief• that god does not exist is different from an insistence (as a piece of •knowledge•) that god does not exist.
The lack of belief expression seems to me to be a transparent attempt to present atheism as the default worldview.
ReplyDeleteThose who call themselves an atheist clearly know what theism is an reject it. They are not ignorant of the matter.
Our hypothetical Taoist is such a different kind of "atheist" that (to Martin's point) it makes the term practically useless.
2. gnostic atheists
ReplyDelete3. atheist
4. Apatheists
5. agnostic atheists
(When 5 applies to a person then he is always agnostic. When 4 applies to a person then it can be dominant.)
I am 2 and 5. I don't believe that god(s) exist but I don't claim absolute certainty, cause we can't prove that god(s) can't exist.
=> agnostic atheist
There are words to describe why/what someone believes or doesn't believe. No reason to change the label. @Chris
Why shouldn't there be a word to cover them all? Theists got their own word, too and it might be as usefull (in a discussion) for a theist to describe why he believes
as it is for atheists.
@Chris
"Our hypothetical Taoist is such a different kind of "atheist" that (to Martin's point) it makes the term practically useless."
It doesn't make the term useless. We still get to know that he doesn't believe in god(s).
Atheism is the broad word to cover all people who don't believe in god. (Would it be such a bad thing when there are words who don't fit someones practically needs but still got usefull applications?)
You don't have to know or reject a concept to not believe it. There is no rejection required to not believe in gods.
Atheists obviously don't agree that there are facts which should make us believe in god(s). When you argue for more than just theism but a certain religion: Please keep in mind that there are many religions out there. They all might call you ignorant for the same reasons as you do.
"Not believing something without valid evidence/reason is the default position for everything in our life. Why should the believe in
god(s) be different?"
Guess your problem with atheism beeing the default position is that you believe in a god/gods and consider there to be enough evidence.
Even when there would be solid evidence and science would conclude that there are indeed god(s): Atheism still remains to be the default cause you need to provide a proof for the existence of god(s).
Not believing in something doesn't require evidence. (Only the claim that there is no god(s) with absolute certainty requires evidence.) Evidence is required to accept claims. Not accepting claims with solid evidence would be indeed ignorant.
Atheism is no worldview. It's just a single opinion on one question.
ReplyDeleteAtheists don't have to be sceptics.
They don't have to believe in evolution or the big bang theory.
There is no dogma, no shared moral code, no anything.
It's just a word to describe that someone happens to not believe in god(s).
I still object to the term, or perhaps I should say the real life use of the term. The definition of atheism all hinges on what is meant by God/s.
ReplyDeleteBy tightening up the meaning of God, the "atheist" community expands and gains rhetorical srength by appearing more "basic" than it is. And from that, the "default" view can be claimed.
On this "messy" definition, a Vedantist is an atheist. A Taoist is an atheist. A Buddhist is an atheist. A Stoic is an atheist. But the truth is, all of these folk are some kind of theist.
Atheism, that is, scientism, is no default.
It's amazing that a post about the definition of atheism attracts so much attention, but the evidence for the existence of God, which is what I have all over this blog, does not.
ReplyDelete"... The definition of atheism all hinges on what is meant by God/s.
ReplyDeleteBy tightening up the meaning of God, the "atheist" community expands and gains rhetorical srength by appearing more "basic" than it is..."
Please explain what you believe and what you mean by "tightening up the meaning of God".
Also I am curious what you consider to be the default or standard progress for deciding something.
"On this "messy" definition, a Vedantist is an atheist. A Taoist is an atheist. A Buddhist is an atheist. A Stoic is an atheist. But the truth is, all of these folk are some kind of theist."
I am really curious how you define god(s). Afaik their religions/philosophies don't include god(s).
There is nothing "messy" about the definition of atheism. These people are atheists cause they don't believe in god(s). The label Atheism doesn't (need to) say anything about Spirituality or practicing a religion. It only notes that they happen to not believe in god(s).
The labels for the absence of religion is nonreligious or irreligious afaik.
"Atheism, that is, scientism, ..."
Again:
"Atheism is no worldview. It's just a single opinion on one question.
Atheists don't have to be sceptics.
They don't have to believe in evolution or the big bang theory.
There is no dogma, no shared moral code, no anything.
It's just a word to describe that someone happens to not believe in god(s)."
"Scientism" is not a requirement for atheism. You even can be an atheist while rejecting the scientific method.
Sorry Martin, but the most posts are by Chris and me.
ReplyDeleteMartin 2
Chris 3
Anonymous 2
Me 4+1
Martin,
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting observation.
Anonymous, what do atheists mean by God/s?
"Anonymous, what do atheists mean by God/s?"
ReplyDeleteThat depends on the respective atheist.
I personally would consider something to be a god, when it's:
- supranatural/transcendent/...
- be mighty in the sense that it (intentionally) could do stuff like creating a universe/ocean
- conscious
- immortal
That wouldn't be enough for me to worship something however. Additional required:
- does actively interfere with us/our universe
- has immensely positive influence on us (ongoing)
- intelligence
- someone does benefit when I worship it
I wrote these lists kinda spontanously so I am willing to change them when other opinions are convincing.
This has been helpful.
ReplyDeleteI think that Martin's objection in this post still stands. A lack of belief seems appropriate to attach to our Taoist friend. He is literally ignorant/agnostic of theism. He lacks belief.
But the other kind of "agnostic" atheist is different. He knows what theism is and rejects it.
Are the pantheistic religions and philosophies to be considered forms of atheism?
"Are the pantheistic religions and philosophies to be considered forms of atheism?"
ReplyDeletewikipedia:
"Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God,[1] or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity.[2] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god, but differ in exact interpretation of the term."
Atheism = not believing in god(s)
Guess when they consider everything to be a god(s)/divine, they still believe in god(s).
Their use of the word god is different from mine but that doesn't really matter.
"He is literally ignorant/agnostic of theism. He lacks belief.
But the other kind of "agnostic" atheist is different. He knows what theism is and rejects it. "
I really don't like how you use the words "ignorant" and "agnostic"...
There are different definitions of words and they can be used in different ways.
I wouldn't call him an agnostic cause he doesn't have to have the "view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist."
The definition you use is causing the trouble.
"He knows what theism is and rejects it."
I already said that you don't have to reject something to not believe it. I was an example of that myself.
I don't disagree that it's quite often usefull for people to define what they are talking about.
"2. Gods do not exist" is bad worded. There is a difference between not believing in god(s) and believing that god(s) don't exist.
Martin seem to believe that "Lack of Belief" can be sorted in 4 categories which simplifies it a bit to much.
Please explain what you believe and what you mean by "tightening up the meaning of God".
Also I am curious what you consider to be the default or standard progress for deciding something.
On the a/gnostic subject, it does seem that we are talking about two different knowledge issues. When I said "ignorant", I certainly didn't mean that as stupid or lacking intelligence. I wasn't trying to be cute. Such an individual is, well, totally agnostic, he lacks both knowledge and belief of the theism you desribed. For such a one, atheism and agnosticism are one and the same (and least based on your definition of God)
ReplyDeleteAs far as the meaning of God goes, I think there may be some ambiguity there as well. If all of the immanent "theisms" (pantheism, panentheism, nondualism etc.) are not part of your definition of God, then "atheism" shrinks to something in the realm of materialism/naturalism. Our Chinese Taoist friend would no longer be an atheist. If, on the other hand, atheism includes the cognitive mystical traditions, then "atheism" expands considerably.
On deciding something, it depends on what we're talking about. The nature of ultimate realty puts us in deep waters....Yes?
"On the a/gnostic subject, it does seem that we are talking about two different knowledge issues. ... Such an individual is, well, totally agnostic, he lacks both knowledge and belief of the theism you desribed."
ReplyDeleteBeeing agnostic doesn't mean that you don't have knowledge about concepts of god(s). It's the view that humanity doesn't currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.
There are agnostic atheist. They don't believe in god(s) but make sure to note that they don't claim that god(s) don't exist. (gnostic atheists do)
There are agnostic theists, too. They believe in god(s) but note that they don't claim absolute certainty that god(s) exist.
"If all of the immanent "theisms" (pantheism, panentheism, nondualism etc.) are not part of your definition of God, then "atheism" shrinks to something in the realm of materialism/naturalism."
The god(s) of pantheists don't meet my personal requirements to be a god. They are still Theists however cause they believe in something what they consider to be a god.
Do you believe in Santa Claus/Chocobos/my claim that my invisible neighbour can levitate? (Assuming that you don't: Why?)
I am still curious what you believe.
What do we make of our follower of Chuang Tzu. Does he lack sufficient evidence or does he just not know about a transcendent creator understandable in terms of human attributes? Surely he is agnostic. If not, what is he?
ReplyDeleteOn the question of what is atheism, your definition seems to preclude all forms of theism and consciousness-based traditions as well, which rules out pretty much eveything but monist materialism.
In that case, it would be hard to see your atheism as anything but veiled scientism. And if that holds true, then I guess I would regard myself as an a-atheist.
He is an atheist when he doesn't believe in something what he considers to be a god(s).
ReplyDeleteHe is an agnostic (=> agnostic atheist in this case) when he got the view that humanity doesn't currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. I don't know much about Taoism but I guess you can't say that he got to be an agnostic just cause he is Taoist.
"On the question of what is atheism, your definition seems to preclude all forms of theism and consciousness-based traditions as well, ..."
Atheism = Not believing in god(s)
When someone believes in something that he considers to be a god, then he is no atheist.
I don't see how I precluded consciousness-based tradtions. Please explain to me why you think that way.
"In that case, it would be hard to see your atheism as anything but veiled scientism. ..."
"Atheism is no worldview. It's just a single opinion on one question.
Atheists don't have to be sceptics.
They don't have to believe in evolution or the big bang theory.
There is no dogma, no shared moral code, no anything.
It's just a word to describe that someone happens to not believe in god(s)."
Some points I still like to hear a response about:
- How do you define god(s)?
- What do you believe?
- Not believing something without valid evidence/reason is the default position for basically everything in our life. Why should the believe in god(s) be different?
- What you mean by "tightening up the meaning of God"?
- Do you believe in Santa Claus/Chocobos/my claim that my invisible neighbour can levitate? (Assuming that you don't: Why?)
@Chris
ReplyDeleteLack of belief IS the default position. By using the burden of proof, theism is not completely scoffed at, but is not accepted. This is because there is no evidence to prove what religions rely on faith for.
Anonymous (please choose a username; I can't tell all these anons apart),
ReplyDeleteYou do have a burden of proof, just like the theist does. You are claiming that there is no evidence to prove religion. You need to provide evidence for this assertion otherwise why should I believe it?
May the futility resume.
ReplyDelete"He is an atheist when he doesn't believe in something what he considers to be a God/s"
You seem to be presenting atheism in a subjective way. Does the individual decide what constitutes God/s? Or is there a more objective standard that we can refer to so as to make this term meaningful?
"I don't see how I precluded consciousness-based traditions"
I was referring to beliefs/traditions that do NOT feature philosophical materialism, yet would not necessarily assent to belief in Deity/s. The reason for that, clearly, is that the very notion of Deity is the particular way in which religion has manifested in the West. That doesn't mean the such people do not believe in the Divine. Far from it. That's why I've been harping about what God means.
Perhaps this is too general. Let me make it more concrete. Take Buddhism for example. They profess what is called a path of enlightenment and the attainment of nirvana. So.. is Nirvana God? Again, it all depends on what God/s means? One meaning of God is that of a personal being who created the universe by deliberate design. Defined in this sense, nirvana is not God (though the Buddha did not deny creation). Here is the "lack of belief" that we've been talking about, making Buddhism, in one sense, atheistic. But that's not the whole story.
There is a second meaning of God, however, which (to distinguish it from the first) has been called Godhead. The idea of personality is not part of this concept, which appears in mystical traditions throughout the world. When the Buddha declared, "There is, O monks, an Unborn, neither become nor created nor formed....Were there not, there would be no deliverance from the formed, the made, the compounded," he seemed to be speaking in this tradition. In the Western world, this perspective is certainly not absent, generally referred to as "negative (without attributes) theology" or "pure" metaphysics.
If you ask a Buddhist, or a Taoist, or a Stoic, or an Advaita Vedantist, "Do you believe in God?" they would probably answer "No or what do you mean?" The point is that these "atheists" are
NOT materialists. Western thought would probably place these beliefs under the category of pantheism, i.e God belief. If you accept that, then the atheism that you are talking about is an unbelievably tiny minority view, past and present, and in all places. I really have difficulty in accepting the idea that the point of view of a few ancient Greeks and some Western "intellectuals" over the last 100 years or so constitutes the "default" view on the ultimate nature of reality.
Oh, on my belief/s.
ReplyDeleteI'm partial to classical theism with heavy neo-platonist leanings.
"May the futility resume."
ReplyDeleteIt feels a bit tough indeed, considering that I think that I answered most of your questions/ideas/objections already but still need to repost them.
""He is an atheist when he doesn't believe in something what he considers to be a God/s"
You seem to be presenting atheism in a subjective way. Does the individual decide what constitutes God/s? ..."
The individual decides what they consider to be god(s).
Some believe everything is god. Some believe their god(s) is a physical person living on a mountain. Some believe their god(s) is a transcended conscious entity.
There might be people who consider certain objects to be god(s). They aren't atheists for sure. They can show me that the object exist but I won't consider it be a god unless they can convince me that it's sufficient to be a god.
"I was referring to beliefs/traditions that do NOT feature philosophical materialism, yet would not necessarily assent to belief in Deity/s."
"The point is that these "atheists" are NOT materialists."
Again:
"Atheism is no worldview. It's just a single opinion on one question.
Atheists don't have to be sceptics.
They don't have to believe in evolution or the big bang theory.
There is no dogma, no shared moral code, no anything.
It's just a word to describe that someone happens to not believe in god(s)."
Philosopical materialism is not required for atheism. Atheism only means that you don't believe in god(s). Not more, not less.
Again:
"... These people are atheists cause they don't believe in god(s). The label Atheism doesn't (need to) say anything about Spirituality or practicing a religion. It only notes that they happen to not believe in god(s).
The labels for the absence of religion is nonreligious or irreligious afaik."
"I really have difficulty in accepting the idea that the point of view of a few ancient Greeks and some Western "intellectuals" over the last 100 years or so constitutes the "default" view on the ultimate nature of reality."
You are the one asking for "objective standard" regarding god(s) and declaring other people to be pantheists. I think that people decide themselves what they consider to be a god. When they don't believe in something what they consider to be a god than they are atheists...
I guess what I'm asking is if the "standard" of what constitutes God/s is individually derived? If that is the case, the term's meaning and usefulness evaporates.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I've spoken with many people from the "spiritual but not religious" community- they seem to be ok with the atheist term provided that God means a super powerful and invisible "being" among beings: the God of the literalist fundamentalist. On that count, I'm an atheist too. I reject that. It would seem that atheism is rather postmodern- perception is reality.
I
"I guess what I'm asking is if the "standard" of what constitutes God/s is individually derived? If that is the case, the term's meaning and usefulness evaporates."
ReplyDeleteAgain:
"The individual decides what they consider to be god(s).
Some believe everything is god. Some believe their god(s) is a physical person living on a mountain. Some believe their god(s) is a transcended conscious entity.
There might be people who consider certain objects to be god(s). They aren't atheists for sure."
I am not aware of an "objective standard" and my first impression is that there is none.
There are many words which don't seem to have objective standards. What's tall, slow, beautiful, funny, normal, ...?
I don't consider these words to be useless just because there don't seem to be an objective standard.
"... they seem to be ok with the atheist term provided that God means a super powerful and invisible "being" among beings: the God of the literalist fundamentalist. ... It would seem that atheism is rather postmodern- perception is reality."
Seriously?
Again:
"Atheism is no worldview. It's just a single opinion on one question.
Atheists don't have to be sceptics.
They don't have to believe in evolution or the big bang theory.
There is no dogma, no shared moral code, no anything.
It's just a word to describe that someone happens to not believe in god(s).
... Atheism only means that you don't believe in god(s). Not more, not less."
There is no atheist definition of god(s)...
"You do have a burden of proof, just like the theist does. You are claiming that there is no evidence to prove religion. You need to provide evidence for this assertion otherwise why should I believe it?"
ReplyDeleteAtheists don't claim that there is no evidence to prove religion. They just don't believe in god(s).
(Afaik only gnostic atheists say anything about the existence of god(s) and that requires evidence too, I guess.)
The person who does the claim needs to provide appropriate evidence to justify that position. (or to convince others)
Atheists either haven't seen the evidence or don't consider it to be sufficient to justify the claim that there are god(s).
According to you every claim is equally justified to not accepting/believing that claim once there was any try at all to provide evidence.
So when I claim that I can fly and sent you a picture of my feets who don't touch the ground, then my claim is equally justified as your position that you don't believe my claim?
You don't make the claim that there is no evidence that I can't fly. You just don't consider my evidence to be sufficient or valid.
It sounds quite a bit like the Fallacy of gray:
"The fallacy of gray is a belief that because nothing is certain, everything is equally uncertain. One who commits this fallacy may reply to the statement that probability of winning a lottery is only one in a million by saying: "There's still a chance, right?" ..."
(http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Fallacy_of_gray)
If we are to accept "lack of belief in God/s" as the defintion of atheism, then I think the category "agnostic atheist" doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is said to be about belief. But the belief in question is defined as a lack of belief, as an absence. But how can one know, one way or another, about something that is absent?
I see, you guys have been studying your ontological argument. Niiice!!!!
"If we are to accept "lack of belief in God/s" as the defintion of atheism, then I think the category "agnostic atheist" doesn't make sense."
ReplyDeleteAgain:
"Beeing agnostic doesn't mean that you don't have knowledge about concepts of god(s). It's the view that humanity doesn't currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist."
I don't see a problem.
"Atheism is said to be about belief. But the belief in question is defined as a lack of belief, as an absence. But how can one know, one way or another, about something that is absent?"
I am not sure what you want to say.
Atheists happen to not believe in god(s). Do you want to claim that they couldn't not believe in something when that something doesn't exist?
There are people who believe in god(s) and they don't treat it like a secret. The concept of god(s) exists but that doesn't make that god(s) exist.
You don't believe in awful lot of stuff which doesn't exist.