Atheism is not the mere lack of belief in gods

[Magic Man]

I'm using it in the technical sense: a supernatural, interventionist being, usually the Creator.

That's how I'm using it, too, with a twist. As Lilithu's brought out, it also includes (for me at least) something you can have a relationship with and can have a will. Also, the "usually" above is a key, I think.

 

[Storm]

That's how I'm using it, too, with a twist. As Lilithu's brought out, it also includes (for me at least) something you can have a relationship with and can have a will. Also, the "usually" above is a key, I think.

Hm. I think that's pushing it too far, myself.

 

[Magic Man]

Hm. I think that's pushing it too far, myself.

Which part? The "having a will" part? You already mentioned the "personal" aspect, which indicates the ability to have a relationship, to me. Do I understand that correctly?

Also, if that's the case, why do you disagree with the "having a will" part?

 

[Storm]

Which part? The "having a will" part? You already mentioned the "personal" aspect, which indicates the ability to have a relationship, to me. Do I understand that correctly?

Well, "relationship" is such a vague word. Take my theology, for instance (which I think we can agree is non-theistic): how do you escape having a relationship with the greater whole?

"Personal" isn't really a good word, either. I prefer interventionist; I only coupled it with "personal" because that's so common.

Also, if that's the case, why do you disagree with the "having a will" part?

Well, I think any God-concept that includes consciousness implies will. It's part of the package.

Using my own beliefs again, God wills that we learn, and we can do nothing else.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't see him claim that it was only about a lack of belief. He only talked about a lack of belief, but he didn't say that rejection of the belief was not part of atheism. He didn't even imply it.

If he didn't imply it, then I misunderstood. What I understood him to say is that babies are really atheists because they lack belief in gods. Maybe Panda will reply. Haven't seen it yet.

 

[Magic Man]

If he didn't imply it, then I misunderstood. What I understood him to say is that babies are really atheists because they lack belief in gods. Maybe Panda will reply. Haven't seen it yet.

Yes, that's what he's saying (at least from my understanding). However, that claim doesn't mean that rejection of god concepts can't be part of the definition of atheism, just that it's not in all cases, including the case of babies.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, "relationship" is such a vague word. Take my theology, for instance (which I think we can agree is non-theistic): how do you escape having a relationship with the greater whole?

I think the main difference in your case is that we are actually part of your god, like a liver is part of me. I don't think of theistic gods that way.

"Personal" isn't really a good word, either. I prefer interventionist; I only coupled it with "personal" because that's so common.

Well, I think personal actually works well. When someone like Einstein says he doesn't believe in a personal god, I take that to mean "a theistic god". That's just the way I think of it, though.

Well, I think any God-concept that includes consciousness implies will. It's part of the package.

Using my own beliefs again, God wills that we learn, and we can do nothing else.

But in your beliefs, God wills that we learn so that God learns, right?

 

[Copernicus]

When defining concepts like "atheism" and "theism", we have to acknowledge that meanings can legitimately stretch, especially in different contexts. It is possible to argue that deism is a type of theism, but it is also possible to argue the opposite. It all depends on what characteristics you attribute to the putative beings that we describe as gods.

Stewart Guthrie, the anthropologist who wrote Faces in the Clouds, talked about different views of gods that we find in many different human societies. He attributed belief in gods to the fact that humans are predisposed to personify everything. As he put it, you are more likely to survive if you habitually mistake rocks for bears than bears for rocks. But he also argued that this very mechanism makes it virtually impossible for human society to avoid anthropomorphism. So, although Christianity has a great many theologians who have worked to deanthropomorphize the Christian concept--Spinoza, Tillich, and Spong come to mind as a good examples of that trend--most people simply cannot accept that kind of ideal for God. For theism to thrive, most people need to have gods that are more like them than some vast impersonal force in the universe.

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, that's what he's saying (at least from my understanding). However, that claim doesn't mean that rejection of god concepts can't be part of the definition of atheism, just that it's not in all cases, including the case of babies.

Okay, then you completely missed my point. Everyone who rejects belief in X lacks belief in X. Both Panda and I agree to that. My point is that not everyone who lacks belief in X rejects belief in X. I am claiming that it is too broad a definition to equate atheism with lack of belief, because it reduces one to the absurdity of calling babies atheists. Panda was just saying that it is not ridiculous to call babies atheists. I counter his claim by pointing out that most dictionary definitions attribute outright "rejection of belief" to atheism, because that is, in fact, the normative usage of "atheism" in English.

Now, one can stretch "atheism" in the way that Panda and others do. It seems to be a favorite trend among atheists to do just that. Why? Is it because they want us to have scandalous thoughts about babies? No. IMO, it is because they do not want to be put on the defensive by having to justify rejection of a popular belief. They argue (and quite rightly, I think), that theists need to meet a burden of proof. It is just that theists believe they have met that burden, and insisting that they have not simply doesn't work. Hence, atheists need to engage in dialogue and stop hiding behind the burden of proof argument, whether it is a legitimate point or not.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay, then you completely missed my point. Everyone who rejects belief in X lacks belief in X. Both Panda and I agree to that. My point is that not everyone who lacks belief in X rejects belief in X. I am claiming that it is too broad a definition to equate atheism with lack of belief, because it reduces one to the absurdity of calling babies atheists. Panda was just saying that it is not ridiculous to call babies atheists. I counter his claim by pointing out that most dictionary definitions attribute outright "rejection of belief" to atheism, because that is, in fact, the normative usage of "atheism" in English.

I understand. Most definitions, including mine, incorporate a lack of belief as well as a rejection of the belief. It can be either one. Most dictionaries give both definitions, and don't specify that you have to meet both criteria. So, calling babies "atheists" is perfectly valid.

Now, one can stretch "atheism" in the way that Panda and others do. It seems to be a favorite trend among atheists to do just that. Why? Is it because they want us to have scandalous thoughts about babies? No. IMO, it is because they do not want to be put on the defensive by having to justify rejection of a popular belief. They argue (and quite rightly, I think), that theists need to meet a burden of proof. It is just that theists believe they have met that burden, and insisting that they have not simply doesn't work. Hence, atheists need to engage in dialogue and stop hiding behind the burden of proof argument, whether it is a legitimate point or not.

It's not stretching the term. It's using it consistently. Most of the atheists I know enjoy dialogue about religion. I don't see this as a motivation for calling babies "atheists" at all. I see it as applying a standard definition. If you want to consider them agnostics or whatever, that's fine, too.

 

[Storm]

Playing with your response to avoid redundancy:

I think the main difference in your case is that we are actually part of your god, like a liver is part of me. I don't think of theistic gods that way....

But in your beliefs, God wills that we learn so that God learns, right?

Absolutely, but the terms "relationship" and "will" still apply.

Well, I think personal actually works well. When someone like Einstein says he doesn't believe in a personal god, I take that to mean "a theistic god". That's just the way I think of it, though.

Well, it's common enough that we all know what he means. I just mislike the phrase.

 

[Magic Man]

Playing with your response to avoid redundancy:
Absolutely, but the terms "relationship" and "will" still apply.

Sure, but in a different context. If I said that any god concept that included those things was theistic, then I didn't mean it. What I was saying is that a theistic god includes those things, but not all concepts which include those things are theistic.

Well, it's common enough that we all know what he means. I just mislike the phrase.

Well, I dislike the term "mislike".

 

[Storm]

Sure, but in a different context. If I said that any god concept that included those things was theistic, then I didn't mean it. What I was saying is that a theistic god includes those things, but not all concepts which include those things are theistic.

Oh, my mistake. I thought that was what you were saying.

Well, I dislike the term "mislike".

*blows raspberry*

It is in the dictionary.

 

[Copernicus]

I understand. Most definitions, including mine, incorporate a lack of belief as well as a rejection of the belief. It can be either one. Most dictionaries give both definitions, and don't specify that you have to meet both criteria. So, calling babies "atheists" is perfectly valid.

I've looked it up and studied the usage a little, and that just isn't true. Occasionally, you will find definitions such as "lack of belief in a god", but they are rare. Usually the definition contains "denial of belief in gods" or "rejection of belief in gods". In any case, dictionary definitions do tend to be broader than people generally realize. For example, Merriam-Webster gives one word sense definition of "bachelor" as "an unmarried man". But that is just false. The Pope and priests are not bachelors, because they are not eligible for marriage. So the definition really needs to be tightened to mention eligibility to be more accurate. Dictionaries contain a lot of errors of that sort.

But we don't need to quibble over this. Word meanings are empirical matters. Make an informal survey on the matter and pass it around to people you know. Put the question to anyone: "Would you consider a baby to be an atheist because it lacks belief in God?" I predict that most people will answer in the negative. Ask the same question of atheists, and you will get a larger percentage of people like Panda who answer positively. That is because this is such an ideological issue.

It's not stretching the term. It's using it consistently. Most of the atheists I know enjoy dialogue about religion. I don't see this as a motivation for calling babies "atheists" at all. I see it as applying a standard definition. If you want to consider them agnostics or whatever, that's fine, too.

I wouldn't call babies either atheists or agnostics. They simply don't know what gods are and have no opinion at all about them. Agnostics are people who deny that it is possible to know whether God or gods exist, or else they are in a state of mind where they are undecided. Babies are not undecided, because they have nothing to make a decision about yet.

A lot of atheists object to calling children of Christians "Christian" on the grounds that children don't really make a serious decision about religious faith until they mature into adulthood. Until then, they are undergoing an extended period of religious indoctrination. I see the point of the argument, but I would still call children who believe in Christian doctrine as they understand it "Christians".

 

[Magic Man]

I've looked it up and studied the usage a little, and that just isn't true. Occasionally, you will find definitions such as "lack of belief in a god", but they are rare. Usually the definition contains "denial of belief in gods" or "rejection of belief in gods". In any case, dictionary definitions do tend to be broader than people generally realize.

They have to be broader. They have to define it for every sense it's used in. I haven't found "lack of belief in God or gods" to be rare, but even if it was, the dictionary's not the be-all-end-all of word meanings.

For example, Merriam-Webster gives one word sense definition of "bachelor" as "an unmarried man". But that is just false. The Pope and priests are not bachelors, because they are not eligible for marriage. So the definition really needs to be tightened to mention eligibility to be more accurate. Dictionaries contain a lot of errors of that sort.

They don't contain errors (except for typos and things). You may use the word a little differently than the dictionary indicates, but that's not an error on the dictionary's part. As for your example, I would call the pope and priests "bachelors". Why not? I don't think you need to be eligible for marriage to be a bachelor. When you have a bachelor pad as a young, unmarried man, does that imply that you're going to get married? No. It implies that you're single. That's all.

But we don't need to quibble over this. Word meanings are empirical matters. Make an informal survey on the matter and pass it around to people you know. Put the question to anyone: "Would you consider a baby to be an atheist because it lacks belief in God?" I predict that most people will answer in the negative. Ask the same question of atheists, and you will get a larger percentage of people like Panda who answer positively. That is because this is such an ideological issue.

I think it's more because of the connotations of the word "atheist". I think many people have a negative view of the word to begin with, and so that will affect their usage of it. Many people have many misconceptions about atheism, and that will also affect their usage of it. So, obviously, you'll get more atheists saying "yes" than non-atheists. However, you'll get more homosexuals voting "No" on Prop 8 than heterosexuals. Sometimes it's not just a bias influencing you, it's a lack of bias the other way helping you see it differently.

I wouldn't call babies either atheists or agnostics. They simply don't know what gods are and have no opinion at all about them. Agnostics are people who deny that it is possible to know whether God or gods exist, or else they are in a state of mind where they are undecided. Babies are not undecided, because they have nothing to make a decision about yet.

OK, well, I disagree. I think if you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist.

A lot of atheists object to calling children of Christians "Christian" on the grounds that children don't really make a serious decision about religious faith until they mature into adulthood. Until then, they are undergoing an extended period of religious indoctrination. I see the point of the argument, but I would still call children who believe in Christian doctrine as they understand it "Christians".

That's weird. I see that as contradictory. If you feel "Christian" is an acceptable term for such a child, then I would expect that you'd be able to call a child an atheist, too.

 

[Copernicus]

They have to be broader. They have to define it for every sense it's used in. I haven't found "lack of belief in God or gods" to be rare, but even if it was, the dictionary's not the be-all-end-all of word meanings.

I certainly agree with your last sentence. We should be careful not to confuse dictionary definitions with meanings, which are encyclopedic in nature. A major purpose of a dictionary is to enumerate and distinguish different word senses in common usage. Lexicographers struggle with the question of how many word senses to list and how broadly to define them.

They don't contain errors (except for typos and things). You may use the word a little differently than the dictionary indicates, but that's not an error on the dictionary's part...

Actually, dictionaries are reviewed by lexicographers and linguists, and a great many errors beyond typos are almost always found. Since definitions are intellectual property, some of the major publishers even insert a fake entry or two to catch plagiarizers. I worked for a very brief stint as a consultant to Random House. It is a fascinating business.

As for your example, I would call the pope and priests "bachelors". Why not? ...

I guess that you're not having any of my nonsense. The example I cited is often used as a teaching exercise in linguistics courses. The point is that dictionary entries are parsimonious, and they should not be confused with the actual meaning, which is always more complex than people realize.

...Many people have many misconceptions about atheism, and that will also affect their usage of it...

That is true, but usage is the only valid determinant of what a word means. The fact that people don't refer to babies as atheists is significant.

OK, well, I disagree. I think if you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist.

But we aren't in disagreement about that. The question has been over how to construe "don't believe in". Dogs and chimpanzees have beliefs, and they don't believe in God. Are they atheists? Certainly not. Then why would a baby be called an atheist?

That's weird. I see that as contradictory. If you feel "Christian" is an acceptable term for such a child, then I would expect that you'd be able to call a child an atheist, too.

Absolutely, if that child claims not to believe in God. The point is that all individuals have different beliefs, and there is no point in claiming that a child is not a Christian or atheist just because he or she lacks a mature understanding of the concepts.

 

[Storm]

Dogs and chimpanzees have beliefs, and they don't believe in God.

How would you know that?

 

[Copernicus]

How would you know that?

I've talked to them, and they appear not to understand the concept.

 

[Storm]

I've talked to them, and they appear not to understand the concept.

Hmm, could that possibly be because you don't speak their language?

I'm kidding, mostly.

 

[Copernicus]

Hmm, could that possibly be because you don't speak their language?

It has more to do with the fact that they can't speak mine. The same is true of babies, although I have greater hope for them.