Atheists often insist that atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. (See here, for example.) Theists often dispute that. Here’s the problem: we’re equivocating on “atheism.” The word has at least three meanings:
1. The presence or lack of belief as a condition or state of a human being. A person who lacks belief in God or gods is in a state that can be described as atheism (or agnosticism, but many of them prefer the term atheism).
2. But there is another meaning for atheism, which is the associated set or sets of beliefs, principles, entailments, and etc.: the “ism” of atheism. Atheists seem to be saying there is no such thing, there is no “ism” to atheism. (Yet they study it anyway. And it certainly does seem to entail several definite beliefs.
3. There is also a social movement of atheism, represented for example in the recent Reason Rally, in atheists’ book sales, and in the atheistic presence on the Internet.
Christians ought to feel free to agree that the first sense of atheism is valid, but also to question the claim that there is no atheism in the second sense. The third sense of the term is indisputable.
Every person in this debate ought to be careful to clarify in which sense he or she is using the term.
Sorry, your laundry list at your self-link #2 is a product of your own imagination.
Buzz… Next.
Or you could say something substantive if you want.
(Others who may wonder why I was so quick to hit the buzzer may read the comments before and after this one for context.)
Tom, I’ve often thought that the claim that atheism is simply a “lack of belief” in God is a lame redefinition of its default, historical meaning.
One atheist said that “We are all born atheists…” – implying that this lack of belief was common to everyone in their early life.
I reply that to say we are all born atheists because we lack a belief in God is like saying we are all born nudists because we lack clothes.
Good answer, Philip!
Well, we are all nudists until we are taught that nudity is shameful. Certainly we need clothes for warmth and protection from the elements, but covering our privates on a warm beach is a learned habit.
Really. Wow.
What’s your evidence for that? Oh, never mind, it’s just ridiculous so don’t bother.
Thank you for raising a very good point Tom! What I would say is that the difficulty in 2 (and similarly in 3, with there being different atheist social movements of different sizes) is that different atheists have different sets of beliefs, some of whom don’t and some of whom do (rightly or wrongly) attribute their beliefs to their atheism. As you say, I think it would be most constructive for debate if people are precise, and clarify which belief set they are considering (e.g. “Person X’s beliefs”, “this explicit collection of beliefs”, “naturalism” etc).
I would also have to say that I don’t think any of the list of propositions in “Atheism Is Not A Belief” are entailed by the weak atheism/agnosticism described in 1 (perhaps the odd one or two, but I think still not most, will be true if you were to use a stricter definition).
I know the difficulties in language can often obfuscate the discussion, and it would be useful if there were distinct words for stronger and weaker atheism (and even for different meanings of agnosticism, I tend to see it as more as an approach to knowledge rather than a theist qualifier), perhaps someone can come up with some!
I sometimes explain that I am a “non-theist” to simply indicate that I lack the belief that God exists. This seems effectively preclude miscommunication, at least for me.
Needless to say, non-theism is not, in any sense, a primary identity. That is, at least from my own point of view, non-theism is not a very central or significant category of self-identification. Since Christians are probably more apt to take “atheist” as a contrast category to “Christian,” Christians are liable to thinking that “atheist”, like “Christian”, is a category defining some primary sense of self-identity. And that’s usually mistaken, at least from the average atheist’s point of view. Most atheists probably don’t often think of themselves as atheists for the same kind of reason that most people don’t often think of themselves as non-walnuts.
Alex’s comment reminded me that we have encountered people who describe themselves as anti-theists rather than atheists.
Perhaps that category is the ‘strong atheism that Alex is thinking of.
Alex?
@bryan
there is also the practical side of the issue, in how people actually live their lives – many people may not spend much time thinking about what they believe or don’t believe (in the rigorous philosophical sense, they don’t thing about their worldview), but nevertheless it guides (influences, constrains?) their day-to-day decisions, actions and attitudes.
You lack the belief that God exists, but I’ll venture to suppose that you live your life as though God does not exist.
Maybe you should rather claim this:
In either case, what do you take to be the significant difference?
So, yes, am a non-walnutist. However, I don’t spend my time on walnutist sites arguing with them in hopes of changing their minds (or Big Foot sites, Fleegman). So, if atheist is a lack of belief in exactly the same sense as my non-walnutist belief is, then there must be some other belief in addition to their “lack of belief” that causes this behavior.
Specifically, there must some belief that it is worth the effort to convince others to shift to a “belief lacking” state. To warrant this type of argument, atheists would have to presume that there are some merits to “lacking belief” that go beyond a simple assertion of falseness or doubt about the existence of God, since they (atheists that enter the debate) clearly think it prudent for others to lack belief as well. So to say that atheism isn’t a belief system seems obviously incorrect. There are at least two beliefs involved in many atheist’s cases.
1) That god doesn’t exist/I lack a belief in God, or whatever, and
2) You should share my lack of belief.
#2) by itself is meaningless if there aren’t other reasons for #2, which mean that evangelical New Atheists most certainly do have a belief system that encompasses more than a simple “lack of belief” in diety.
So, it’s another example of how atheism is, in at least many cases, self-contradictory, or dishonestly self-described.
@bryan
What is the practical difference between those two positions? Either way, you order your life without taking into account God and His eternal kingdom, His sovereign authority, the grace that He bestows on us, both common grace and redeeming grace through the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is what Psalm 14:1-7 and Romans 1:18-3:31 are really describing.
Is it correct to say that all atheists are metaphysical naturalists, or that all metaphysical naturalists are atheists?
No one here is claiming that no non-theists accord to their absence of theistic belief a prominent place in their self-identity. Speaking for myself, non-theism only becomes an important part of my self-identity when I find myself around a lot of theists (which is about two-weeks a year). Also, I generally think that it is not worth the effort to try to convince a religious fundamentalist to drop his/her theism. It may, however, be worth the effort to try to discuss other things with a religious fundamentalist, and even to try to disabuse a religious fundamentalist of various confusions. Or it may simply be enjoyable to sometimes engage in conversation with a religious fundamentalist.
@bryan
please define ‘religious fundamentalist’ for us, as this term is loaded and has become a common perjorative.
You can define it anyway you wish. The point I am making is independent of such controversy.
@bryan
OK – I’ll be charitable and assume you are not using the term as a slur 🙂
Christians seem to have a hard time accepting that, for many non-theists, non-theism isn’t, from their own perspective, a prominent part of their personal identity; the fact that they are not theists is more like the fact that that they are not, e.g., Norwegian than the fact that they are parents, teachers, dog owners, cyclists, home owners, vegetarians, married, or single, etc.
@bryan
On the contrary, I think many of us are well aware of that, especially those of us who used to be non-theists ourselves, before coming to faith in Jesus Christ and becoming part of His adopted family. We know all too well that BC, we didn’t think much about God, nor consider Him in our day-to-day lives.
For Christians, being Christian, living the Christian life, maintaining and growing our relationship with our Abba Adonai, our Saviour, Jesus Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit is very much a part of our day-to-day walk with God – we are very conscious of learning to be good and faithful servants, studying His Word, and developing a coherent and integrated Christian worldview. As a PhD physicist and a Christian, thinking about science and faith issues is a biggie for me.
Where did you get your Physics PhD, Victoria?
Oh 30+ years ago, University of Windsor (a small school, but with a Physics department with professors of international reputation).
I’m actually in the private sector now, doing medical imaging software design, but I still try to stay current in what’s happening in Physics 🙂
bryan:
You’re a bona fides fool: bandying about the term “religious fundamentalist” pejoratively, followed by the cowardly retreat to “define it any way you wish” because you know you’re walking on thin ice… not to mention you don’t know what you’re talking about. Boy, now that’s a great display of intellectual rigor… NOT.
Memo: there is no other way you could have used it except as a slur–a slur that means “anyone that holds religious beliefs.”
And, does it matter from where Victoria got her Ph.D…. or are you–like most atheists–emotionally committed to the genetic fallacy? If the latter, would you like to cross your dull penknife with my MIT Ph.D. sword?
The “not worth the effort” to which you refer actually applies to critical thinkers attempting to reason with atheists.
Well that’s at least as good as a BA from an American public college. 🙂
Seriously, I’m glad you’re around. I had worried you were identical to a far less pleasant “Victoria” I had encountered on a fundy blog elsewhere. If this other Victoria had a PhD, it could have been granted only by a shady Iphone app.
@Holopupenko
Buzz…Next.
@Holopupenko
Thanks, my big brother 🙂
@bryan
thank you for the compliment, then 🙂
Also, Bryan, what you say about your non-theism being relatively unimportant to you is just that: an autobiographical statement, in fact a feeling statement. It has nothing to do with whether atheism or non-theism is true. I don’t know whether you think that’s an important question, but objectively speaking, it’s one of the most crucial of all.
My point is simply to respond to the theme of this thread. If I tell a Christian that I am an atheist, this is likely to prompt a predictable kind of miscommunication that I usually wish to avoid.
@Tom
Good point, that.
Christians affirm that Christianity is objectively true – that’s why we embrace it and live it
We might put the point this way. If a Christian asks me if I am an atheist, I should probably respond by first clarifying the question: “are you simply asking whether or not I believe that God exists?” If this is indeed what the Christian is asking, then eleven months out of twelve, I would probably do well to say something like this:
Well, I’ve not thought about this in awhile…let me see. Hmm…I guess I probably don’t believe that God exists.
Then you would probably be asked what Tom just asked you about the objective truth of the matter.
What does the issue of objective truth got to do with my answer? As a prior question, what do you mean by “objective truth”?
It has to do with whether or not you think that your belief corresponds to reality.
I think my belief corresponds to reality, even though I recognize that, in all likelihood, some of my beliefs don’t. What of it?
Then how do you know that this particular belief, or non-belief if you prefer, is not actually in your set that don’t correspond to reality?
Actually, if it were me asking you the question, I would have asked what your worldview is like, e.g. “are you a Metaphysical Naturalist or a Biblical Christian Theist?”
All I can do is all that anyone can do in such a circumstance (“the preface paradox”): For the particular belief (or any particular belief that you select), I can offer my evidence for thinking that it is true.
Is this going anywhere relevant?
And once we get on to the topic of evidence, then the Christian can do the same :), as well as critique both your evidence and your interpretation
But who is denying this? Where are you taking this thread?
@bryan
It does seem that we are moving slightly off topic from the OP, but as Tom brought it up…
However, I’m amenable to coming back to the original OP 🙂
Then, since we seem to have the option, let’s delete these comments. If you delete your comments after #33, I’ll delete mine after #33.
no, we can just leave the comments…if someone else wants to follow up with those ideas, let ’em. That is not unusual at all on this blog site.
A bad custom, IMHO.
So now, by strong implication @26, this is a “fundy blog” where “fundy” is applied to any person or organization of faith.
Leaving aside bryan’s hypocrisy over objective reality/meaning highlighted by Victoria, bryan–AS AN ATHEIST–is another manifestation of its WILL TO POWER over others: I, the atheist, label you as a “fundy” merely because you’re a believer–that’s my entitlement, even if I reject objective truth. Only what I say counts as evidence, counts. You, on the other hand, should swallow everything–EVERYTHING I assert because people of faith just don’t make the cut. If you fundy faithers say something I disagree with, I’ll call you fundy again… so there! If that doesn’t work, we atheists will have to go Betrand Russell on your butts:
Atheists… they walk among us.
Tom:
There’s something weird going on with the comments function… it’s actually kinda hard to describe.
I still think it might have something to do with caching. I’m going to turn off my cache plugin for a while. Let me know if you notice a difference.
@Tom -I think it does, as I have to constantly reload a page after navigating to it (in FF) before it shows me the most recent state
Caching should be off now, and if that’s the right answer you should see the difference.
looks better now
comment function going nuts!
Could be Chrome on my end… but it seems okay now.
@Holopupenko:
Suddenly, I had a vision of being surrounded by Zombies out of a George Romero movie, with arms outstretched in order to rip apart my flesh and eat it raw.
Holopupenko seems to be shark jumping. Is he/she usually like this?
Nope. Just being painfully accurate about your condescension and name-calling directed against people of faith, faith in general… and your deadly atheism.
Well, I am glad you’re not usually like this. If I were of faith I’d pray for your recovery. As it is, I’ll just hope that I can encounter you again in a less hostile, less agitated mood.
@Justin: #14
An alternate (2)…
2) I should not remedy my lack of belief in your God, or whatever, but thank you for telling me about Him anyway. No, really.. thank you. Seriously, none of that makes sense. Go away. Really? Why are you telling me about him on TV at 3:30AM. Why are you knocking on my door with a pamphlet about Him? And why are you advertising for Him on billboards all along the roads I drive. OK, here’s why I don’t believe any of it…
Unlike wal-nutists, most theists (at least of the Christian/Mulsim variety) are called to convert the world – it’s a feature of their worldview. If walnutists were called to convert me to walnutism, I’d likely engage them in conversation and debate.
And so it makes sense, for those of us who are not convinced on the existence of gods (ie, we lack belief), to spend time investigating the matter, and engaging theists in conversation and debate, for numerous reasons.
1) To see if you are actually right
2) In the event we find you unconvincing, it’s helpful to be able to articulate why
… and more …
And really, this is not hard to see, unless one has seriously swallowed the kool-aid – as long as non-theists exist, Christians (or similar theists) will be embroiled in a culture (or holy?!) war against them. Its utterly blindingly obvious why we engage you in debate, and self-contradiction has nothing to do with it. Hello!
And really, don’t get me wrong – I find no fault with anybody for trying to convince others of what they believe to be true.
But for ******’s sake, don’t get all surprised when we respond, or engage in debate, or even go on the offensive ourselves, or act like its self-contradictory to do so.
So d, my point was simply that atheism entails more than a simple “lack of belief in God”, as is often claimed. Thanks for agreeing with me.
I’m not surprised that people debate it, d. But if there is a cultural war, then there must be other beliefs that accompany atheistic thinking to war about. The simple existence or non-existence of God, debated in isolation, would not result in a cultural war if there were no ramifications for holding it either true or false.