Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are deists atheists?

Do deists believe in god(s)?

That's fine, but it stands in contrast to those people who would perfer that atheism be a reasoned position.

Atheism has plenty of room for people who want reasoned positions: freethought, skepticism, etc.

And mere rejection of deities doesn't imply that a position is necessarily reasoned (or reasonable). The classic example of this is the Raelians; even if we define atheism in terms of rejection of gods, they're still lumped in the same category as the "reasoned" atheists.

 

[Magic Man]

Are deists atheists?

See, this is a part of the debate that hasn't gotten much play, but is very interesting. I would say they're atheists, but it is a weird middle ground. Generally I say anyone who doesn't believe in a theistic god is an atheist, since I wouldn't consider them a theist.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism has plenty of room for people who want reasoned positions: freethought, skepticism, etc.

Right. But atheism itself isn't a reasoned position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. But atheism itself isn't a reasoned position.

And are you saying that it should be? If so, how would you do it?

 

[Willamena]

And are you saying that it should be? If so, how would you do it?

I'm saying that it is, indeed. I'm saying freethinkers, skeptics, etc. have the right of it. I'm saying people (and babies and rocks) aren't atheists "just because," and that those who are diminish a good thing.

In exploring the ideas of theism and finding a reason to reject claims about "god," people arrive at atheism with a sound position.

 

[Commoner]

I distinguish between rejection of an argument and rejection of its conclusion, which does not depend on the argument being rejected.

Exactly. And this is where we have a disagreement. I do not think one needs to reject the conclusion in order to be an atheist.

An atheist rejects the conclusion that gods exist. Now the rejection of that conclusion my be based on relatively weak "burden of proof" grounds, but it is still a rejection.

Well, see - I would consider that to mean rejecting the argument, not really rejecting the conclusion.

If someone honestly does not reject the conclusion that gods exist, but just all the known arguments that lead to that conclusion, I would not call that person an atheist.

I would.

I would call her or him an "agnostic", and most people would know exactly what I meant. After all, theists can be agnostics who reject all logical and empirical arguments in favor of a god. Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism, because it rejects the arguments, not the belief.

This is fine if you define atheism as you have - but that's simply assuming the conclusion. As far as I can see, your thinking is that atheism must be a position that god does not exist - whether you say that's merely a "belief" or "knowledge" or anything in between. Agnosticism is a wide term, but I would consider someone who is agnostic regarding "the god issue" in particular and does not have a theistic belief to be an atheist - or an agnostic atheist.

If it were a coin flip, I would reject the conclusion, because the chances of it being heads or tails would be even. I would be a pure agnostic, although I might be less of an agnostic if I were more of a gambler. If it were a die being cast, I would reject belief, because I would have good odds for rejecting the truth of the claim. This is a good example of how I reason about gods. The odds are really very slim that such entities exist. The other guy tells me that he knows it is a "six", but I am still left wondering how he can see in the dark what I cannot. I suspect that he is more of a gambler than I am.

This is not how I view things, however. Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge and it is applicable in the case of a coin flip. However, I would consider you an atheist for merely dismissing the other person's claim (while obviously lacking any belief in a god/deity/etc.). I don't think there's really anything to argue about - I think I understand your position, I think you understand mine. As for what should be more relevant to the definition - to tell you the truth, I don't think either of our positions makes for a good "stand-alone" definition.

Good point. I think that you are using it to mean rejection of arguments in favor of theism, and I am using it to mean rejection of the conclusion for whatever reason.

Yes.

Most of us believe that failure to meet the burden of proof for a positive assertion is grounds for rejecting the assertion, other things being equal. But other things are not usually equal when it comes to burden of proof. Take Russell's teapot, for example. You don't reject the assertion that one is in orbit around the sun merely because there is not evidence of such a thing. You reject it because you know things about teapots and objects that usually orbit the sun. This is not a case of "other things being equal". The same is true of gods. We believe a lot of things about reality that would need to be addressed before we could accept the existence of what people normally think of as a "god". It is never merely just a matter of theists not meeting their burden of proof on one or two arguments.

I mean, I basically agree. But that doesn't change anything. You put it very nicely that: "Failure to meet the burden of proof for a positive assertion is grounds for rejecting the assertion." I agree - and as far as I'm concerned that is enough to be an atheist. I also think there are other things that can be said about most religious arguments and so you can "go further" in your rejection of theism. But that's besides the point.

Perhaps, but the word "atheism" is only useful insofar as it can be used in a broad community of speakers. No individual usage defines it, nor does an agreement by a limited speech community to use it in one way obligate the rest of the speech community to conform to their usage. Such limited usage might deserve a footnote in an unabridged dictionary, but it is wrong to insist on it as the "correct" meaning of the word. Usage determines correctness. Nothing else.

I'll be looking forward to you establishing the "usage" to this level of detail. Good luck!

Look - if you simply want me to agree that "doesn't believe in god" or something like that is better for a dictionary than some very complex, two pages long explanation - you've got it. I don't think I have ever looked at the dictionary to find out what a Christian is and I'm pretty sure I could look at it and misinterpret it in about a second. Your argument seems to be largely that a dictionary definition cannot convey the full specter of the meaning of a word, a term, and must necessarily be an approximation of that so there is no need for it to contain the whole dimension of "atheist". Ok - that's fine, but I don't see a reason why it could not contain, in a proper definition (or a series of definitions),at least all the marginal points of that "dimension" - the broadest meaning, the narrowest meaning, the exceptions, the rules, etc... I cannot agree with you that your definition can be considered "correct", but neither am I pushing my own understanding of the word as a proper definition.

Are you sure there is a single "most used" definition/meaning/usage that is "most used" by a significant-enough margin to be considered correct?

How? Someone has rolled a die in a dark room and told you what the number is. You calculate the odds and arrive at your best guess--that it is probably not six. You look at what it means to call something a "god" and what people believe about that entity (e.g. that it is undetectable except to a few lucky people). You form your opinions on that basis, just as you form opinions about all sorts of things in the real world that you might be wrong about. I do not know that my house will be waiting for me when I return home tonight, but I believe that it will. If it isn't, I'll revise my opinion.

Yes, I can do that and I do. I can calculate the probability of rolling a six and of "not rolling a six" and decide which is more likely. Not the point though - my point was to explain my position regarding atheism and what it takes, in my opinion, to be one. Whether or not I can also decide that the opposite belief is more reasonable is secondary.

 

[Commoner]

Do deists believe in god(s)?

Are deists theists?

 

[Commoner]

See, this is a part of the debate that hasn't gotten much play, but is very interesting. I would say they're atheists, but it is a weird middle ground. Generally I say anyone who doesn't believe in a theistic god is an atheist, since I wouldn't consider them a theist.

This is why I like my middle ground though...

To leave the "not given" as an option is to avoid this kinds of problems - not to mention I also think that's the proper way to think about it. But yeah, "generally", I agree - it's not like this is really something that makes a whole lot of difference in practice anyway.

 

[Copernicus]

Are deists theists?

Yes. They believe in a god--usually some kind of intelligent creator of the universe--that takes no interest in humanity.

 

[Copernicus]

But what would it need to be to be "in my favour"? You acknowledged earlier that a word's usage doesn't have to be in the majority for it to be valid. If anything, a 50-50 split says to me that you're wrong in saying that I can't use the word the way I do.

Let's just consider what the survey showed. In a community of people focused on the theism/atheism debate, only half of the survey respondents felt it reasonable to classify babies as "atheists", and that is in a forum where this question had already triggered a long debate. This is probably the best statistic you can hope for--not even majority agreement with your position in that specialized context. Two other atheist-dominated boards rejected your interpretation. If we are talking about general English usage, this is a drop in the ocean. Moreover, published dictionaries corroborate my sense of the word, not yours. Where your sense is acknowledged (as on the Wikipedia page), the definition is admittedly contoversial (see Religious Tolerance page of definitions of "atheism").

And my point before was that the vast majority of people who disagree with the idea that babies are atheists do so because of reasons that you would agree are invalid as well, and not because they think your definition is correct. Once we stop counting all these people as some sort of "support" for your definition, the foundation for your argument seems much less solid.

You've lost me there. When did I agree that people reject the classification for "invalid reasons"? I do not recall doing that. I think that the vast majority think of atheists and theists as people who take a stand on whether or not gods exist, so the idea of classifying a baby as an atheist is ludicrous. My expectation is that this generalization will hold for non-believers as well as believers. Most atheists probably are not even aware of your definition, since most do not even hang out in internet discussion forums.

And you think your definition is a good one?

I think that any definition that treats atheists as people who take a negative stand on the existence of gods is a reasonable definition. One that treats them as people who merely lack opinions about the existence of gods is bad, because it confuses atheists with people who are ignorant of gods or who just cannot decide whether they exist. That flies in the face of how people use the word in normal English, and there is nothing wrong with normal English usage. It is actually less vague about what the word means than your proposed usage.

AFAICT, if a person was to say "I don't reject belief in gods, but I don't believe in any of them either", you'd classify that person as "not an atheist". How is that not misleading?

To most English speakers, it is confusing to call those who cannot decide whether gods exist "atheists". You can just call them agnostics, and most people will draw the correct conclusion. You can also call them non-theists or non-believers without violating anyone else's usage. Why are you so determined to call such people "atheists"? What would be the harm of just sticking with usage that most people would understand?

 

[Copernicus]

Well, see - I would consider that to mean rejecting the argument, not really rejecting the conclusion.

To be more exact, I should have said "reject the proposition that also happens to be the conclusion of the argument". Sorry if my wording was unclear, but you seem to understand the nature of our disagreement.

This is fine if you define atheism as you have - but that's simply assuming the conclusion. As far as I can see, your thinking is that atheism must be a position that god does not exist - whether you say that's merely a "belief" or "knowledge" or anything in between. Agnosticism is a wide term, but I would consider someone who is agnostic regarding "the god issue" in particular and does not have a theistic belief to be an atheist - or an agnostic atheist.

There are now roughly two senses of "agnostic", both of which are in wide usage. In the widest usage, a strong atheist such as myself would not be considered an "agnostic", because I seriously doubt the existence of any gods. Agnosticism in that sense refers to an inability to decide. In the narrower, and more classic, word sense, agnosticism refers to rejection of the ability to know the answer beyond even a shadow of a doubt. In that sense, I am an agnostic. I reject belief in gods on empirical grounds, not purely logical grounds. What I think I know about the world causes me to rule them out as plausible beings.

I'll be looking forward to you establishing the "usage" to this level of detail. Good luck!

I'm not going to do that here, but there are established linguistic techniques for doing that. I think that I've established reasonable grounds in this thread to make my point, but that doesn't mean that everyone else agrees with me.

...I cannot agree with you that your definition can be considered "correct", but neither am I pushing my own understanding of the word as a proper definition.

That is really all I ask of you. I have proposed a basis for determining "correct" meaning, and that is usage. You are not proposing a coherent alternative basis, and that is consistent with the responses of others who did not agree with me.

Are you sure there is a single "most used" definition/meaning/usage that is "most used" by a significant-enough margin to be considered correct?

I think that most dictionaries are reliable in this matter.

I would ask you the same question that I asked Penguin, though. Why do you think it so important to be able to call someone with no opinion about the existence of gods an "atheist". On what basis do you reject the more conventional definition given by most dictionaries?

 

[Commoner]

Yes. They believe in a god--usually some kind of intelligent creator of the universe--that takes no interest in humanity.

That makes them theist? The whole point of theism is a belief in a god that is present and active, isn't it? Perhaps this will be another one of those things we disagree on?

 

[Copernicus]

That makes them theist? The whole point of theism is a belief in a god that is present and active, isn't it? Perhaps this will be another one of those things we disagree on?

If you make it so. Deists are often defined as people who believe that God exists but does not intervene in human affairs, let alone the course of natural events in the universe. Before Darwin, there seemed to be more religious skeptics who were deists than atheists, because there was no clear understanding of how biological diversity could come to have the incredible amount of order that we see exists around us. Now that we have solved that puzzle, there seem to be fewer deists than atheists around.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Thanks for the video. I had mixed feelings about it. It was too long, preachy, and dismissive of possible alternative points of view, but it did cover many of the arguments made by "lackers" in this long thread. I was particularly happy to see the little baby image in the video, because it confirmed my view that atheist who push the "lacks belief" definition do admittedly paint themselves into that corner. Ironically, the video mocked the "believes not" position for trying to claim that animals and inanimate things should be called "atheists", but it was the lackers in this thread who actually defended that idea initially.

The video did not get too deeply into amateur linguistic arguments, which was another thing I liked about it. However, they seem to have missed the main point, which is that the definitions of words are determined by usage, not ideological prescriptions. In the end, I think that they put too fine a point on what it means to "lack a belief", and they certainly did not address my distinction between skepticism and ignorance. Atheists (= people who believe gods do not exist) are always skeptics, never people merely ignorant of what a "god" is. That was the original understanding of the word, and it is the understanding that most people have of it today. Atheists always lack belief in the existence of gods. But god-ignorant people are not skeptics and not atheists. They also lack belief in gods, but in a very different sense from atheists.

I agree with your point that god-ignorant people are not atheists in the sense that lack-of-belief -ers are. But I do have to reiterate that I don't believe that god(s) don't exist. I lack a belief that god(s) exist. Believing and lacking a belief are two very different things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's just consider what the survey showed. In a community of people focused on the theism/atheism debate, only half of the survey respondents felt it reasonable to classify babies as "atheists", and that is in a forum where this question had already triggered a long debate. This is probably the best statistic you can hope for--not even majority agreement with your position in that specialized context. Two other atheist-dominated boards rejected your interpretation.

Hold on one minute: you're misrepresenting the survey. That's not what you asked.

You asked how people used the term themselves, not whether they considered it reasonable to classify babies as atheists.

If you were to ask me how I use the term "hockey", I'll tell you that primarily use the term to describe a game played on ice. However, this doesn't mean that I think people are wrong when they call field hockey "hockey" as well.

If we are talking about general English usage, this is a drop in the ocean. Moreover, published dictionaries corroborate my sense of the word, not yours.

Except for the fact that they do corroborate my sense of the word, as I demonstrated in detail.

Where your sense is acknowledged (as on the Wikipedia page), the definition is admittedly contoversial (see Religious Tolerance page of definitions of "atheism").

... or discussed matter-of-factly, as in the case of the Wikipedia article I mentioned. You're being very selective.

You've lost me there. When did I agree that people reject the classification for "invalid reasons"? I do not recall doing that.

You've conceded to some of the points, and I think the rest are reasonable inferences from arguments you've made, but if you really do object:

- when people decide that their baby isn't an atheist because they think it's actually Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or any religion), do you think they're correct?

- when people decide that their baby isn't an atheist because it's sweet and innocent, but atheists are nasty and evil, do you think they're correct?

If you agree that both of these ideas are based on incorrect suppositions (and I hope you do), then you have to realize that some amount of the "babies can't be atheists" crowd don't support the idea because they agree with you. The the second category doesn't require acceptance of your argument, and the first category is actually incompatible with it.

To most English speakers, it is confusing to call those who cannot decide whether gods exist "atheists". You can just call them agnostics, and most people will draw the correct conclusion.

The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

You can also call them non-theists or non-believers without violating anyone else's usage. Why are you so determined to call such people "atheists"? What would be the harm of just sticking with usage that most people would understand?

Because the term is correct in this case, and because correctness of language matters to me.

 

[Commoner]

To be more exact, I should have said "reject the proposition that also happens to be the conclusion of the argument". Sorry if my wording was unclear, but you seem to understand the nature of our disagreement.

Ok.

That is really all I ask of you. I have proposed a basis for determining "correct" meaning, and that is usage. You are not proposing a coherent alternative basis, and that is consistent with the responses of others who did not agree with me.

I don't think I need to propose an alternative, to tell you the truth.

I would ask you the same question that I asked Penguin, though. Why do you think it so important to be able to call someone with no opinion about the existence of gods an "atheist". On what basis do you reject the more conventional definition given by most dictionaries?

Who has no opinion? Look, just because the "opinion" is not directly "god (probably) does not exist" or "god (probably) exists" doesn't mean one has no opinion regarding this issue. There is no good reason to believe that a god exists and trying to disprove something that is, for the most part, unfalsifiable makes no sense, therefore I am an atheist without an explicit belief that no gods exist(ed) anywhere at any point in time.

Why I think it's "so important" for such a person to be included is because this is, in a very large part, how I think about this. The reason why I'm active in these debates has very little to do with a "quest" to establish that god does not exist and everything to do with explaning to people why theistic claims are utter nonsense. You think this makes me an agnostic, I think it makes me an atheist. It is true that I also have certain beliefs about specific gods - and it's true that I believe that they do not exist, similar to theists who reject other "god concepts". Yet, I have no real sense of "no god exists" while having no doubt about not believing that any of them exist whatsoever. There you go - that's the best I can describe myself. You may think "agnostic" is the best label for me, I think most people would agree, however, that this is not accurate.

When you talk about "usage" - do you think people would, in general, regard anyone who is strongly and outspokenly anti-religious to be an agnostic rather than an atheist?

 

[Commoner]

If you make it so. Deists are often defined as people who believe that God exists but does not intervene in human affairs, let alone the course of natural events in the universe. Before Darwin, there seemed to be more religious skeptics who were deists than atheists, because there was no clear understanding of how biological diversity could come to have the incredible amount of order that we see exists around us. Now that we have solved that puzzle, there seem to be fewer deists than atheists around.

How often are theists described without the implication that their god is quite present in their lives? Do many deists regard themself to be theists? Is there any dictionary/article on the subject/discussion on the subject that does not stress the distinction between deists and theists? "Religious skeptics", how you described deists, are theists?

Yes, if you believe deists are theists, we disagree on this issue, very much so. But you are blowing my mind with how unexpected some of your positions are to me...

 

[Magic Man]

This is why I like my middle ground though...

To leave the "not given" as an option is to avoid this kinds of problems - not to mention I also think that's the proper way to think about it. But yeah, "generally", I agree - it's not like this is really something that makes a whole lot of difference in practice anyway.

See, deism is the best argument for the use of "non-theist" I've seen. However, technically, I'd still consider a deist an atheist.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think I need to propose an alternative, to tell you the truth.

Not if you accept my simple criterion for the basis of a definition: usage. That is the criterion that all lexicographers go by. If you (like some) want to argue that usage is not the basis of word definitions, then you do have some obligation to propose an alternative.

Who has no opinion? Look, just because the "opinion" is not directly "god (probably) does not exist" or "god (probably) exists" doesn't mean one has no opinion regarding this issue. There is no good reason to believe that a god exists and trying to disprove something that is, for the most part, unfalsifiable makes no sense, therefore I am an atheist without an explicit belief that no gods exist(ed) anywhere at any point in time.

I don't find your argument convincing. A person who takes no stand at all with respect to the existence of gods has no opinion on their existence. Someone who has even a weakly held belief that they do not exist is an atheist. For some reason, you feel it very important to insist that you have no opinion on their existence, and maybe you don't. However, you do seem to express negative views in these discussions when the subject comes up. What you seem to be saying is that you believe the gods that you know about do not exist. You don't want to deny the existence of gods that you do not know about, so you claim to take no position on the existence of gods in general. This is similar to the view that Penguin articulated. My opinion of it is that you qualify as someone whose default opinion is that gods do not exist. Like me, you reserve the right to change your opinion if evidence should present itself. Unlike me, you do not wish to characterize your atheism as an opinion that gods do not exist. The only problem I have with that is the use of the definition to classify people as "atheists" who really are neutral on the question of the existence of gods that they (unlike you) do know about.

Why I think it's "so important" for such a person to be included is because this is, in a very large part, how I think about this. The reason why I'm active in these debates has very little to do with a "quest" to establish that god does not exist and everything to do with explaning to people why theistic claims are utter nonsense. You think this makes me an agnostic, I think it makes me an atheist. It is true that I also have certain beliefs about specific gods - and it's true that I believe that they do not exist, similar to theists who reject other "god concepts". Yet, I have no real sense of "no god exists" while having no doubt about not believing that any of them exist whatsoever. There you go - that's the best I can describe myself. You may think "agnostic" is the best label for me, I think most people would agree, however, that this is not accurate.

The truth is that I think you are an atheist who wants to keep an open mind on the subject of the existence of gods. You consider them implausible beings, not logically impossible beings. I would call that an opinion that they do not exist until you see proof to the contrary. But, again, I am not in a position to say exactly what your opinions are. I can only gain an impression from what you write in these forums. I still am somewhat puzzled as to why you and other atheists expend so much effort on a definition of atheism that denies the idea that atheism is a belief. It is not a type of religious faith--just the opposite, in fact. But theism is not a type of faith either. It is just the opposite of atheism--i.e. a belief that one or more gods exist.

When you talk about "usage" - do you think people would, in general, regard anyone who is strongly and outspokenly anti-religious to be an agnostic rather than an atheist?

In the context of a discussion on atheism, deism normally refers just to belief in gods. But it does have another sense that stands in opposition to theism. I don't see a need to get hung up over the lexical ambiguity, which is based on--you guessed it--usage.

How often are theists described without the implication that their god is quite present in their lives? Do many deists regard themself to be theists? Is there any dictionary/article on the subject/discussion on the subject that does not stress the distinction between deists and theists? "Religious skeptics", how you described deists, are theists?

All good questions. I think of deists as a specific type of theist, but I agree with you that we most often think of theism as involving a religious creed, a practice of worship, and so on. From the perspective of a lexicologist, one would say that deists are a bit distant from the prototypical theist, just as penguins are not as "birdy" as, say, robins. From the perspective of a lexicographer (i.e. a person who must make up definitions for popular word usage), the problem becomes one of how many word senses to list in a dictionary entry and how best to describe them. That means that you usually look to the prototype (or archetype) for the main word sense and to extensions of it for other word senses. This type of word ambiguity is sometimes called "polysemy" to distinguish it from "homonymy". Homonyms are considered different words that happen to have the same pronunciation (string of phonemes).

Yes, if you believe deists are theists, we disagree on this issue, very much so. But you are blowing my mind with how unexpected some of your positions are to me...

Look, words can have more than one sense. You need to be careful, or you end up equivocating. Dictionary.com gives good definitions for deism and theism:

deism

1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation ( distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

theism

1. the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But theism is not a type of faith either. It is just the opposite of atheism--i.e. a belief that one or more gods exist.

So what I am if I don't hold that belief?