Pensee

So, in my last semester, I am taking my very first philosophy course. Last week, we touched on beliefs. My professor defined 6 -isms (theism, fideism, atheism, agonsticism, inquirism, and positivism) in relation to beliefs.

He defined atheism as, "the belief that there is proof of the non-existence of god." I thought that atheism was just a lack of belief in god(s) and I told him so. But he stuck to his guns and said that the definition he gave was the accepted one in philosophy. If you defined atheism as just a lack of belief in god, then you confuse it with agnosticism. I would have liked to pursue it further but I would have argued with him all night and to be frank, his intelligence intimdates me.

I think we'll be getting into this discussion deeper next week. Any thoughts on how I define atheism and how he defines atheism? Know of any good sources that I could use to support my definition?

Tom Sawyer

Your professor has a point.

A lot of atheists would tell you that rather than saying there is proof that gods don't exist, they say that there is no proof that they do. That's an important difference.

Saying that gods are disproven means that there is no possibility that there could be any kind of divine influence upon the universe. Based upon all the scientific evidence available, the universe works exactly as it should according to the laws of nature and any kind of divine manipulation would leave telltale signs that are not found anywhere. Everything is exactly as is should be without any intelligent aid and would be different if intelligent aid had been applied to things. Perhaps that's not the best explanation of it, but it's the best I could come up with in thirty seconds.

On the other hand, saying that no gods have been proven means that the evidence to date shows no divine influence, so there's no reason to believe that it's there. If however, new evidence presents itself that cannot be explained by anything less than the Hand of God, then I'd have to change my mind.

Some on these boards have called these the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. Weak atheism leaves open the possibility that gods might exist, even though there's no reason to think so. Because there's that might there, some people could reasonably classify weak atheism as a form of agnosticism.

I personally would disagree with that classification. Agnosticism means that the verdict hasn't been reached yet; weak atheism means that the case is closed, but the District Attorney may refile if new evidence presents itself. Agnosticism means you've looked at the evidence and cannot reach a conclusion; weak atheism means that you've already reached a conclusion, but are open-minded enough to realize that with different facts, you could potentially reach a different conclusion. Without those additional facts, though, there is no difference between weak and strong atheism; the weak atheist just admits that there is the outside potential for them.

If you define agnosticism as any potential doubt about the existence of gods, then yes, weak atheism is an agnostic philosophy. I think that that is too broad a definition of an agnostic, though. I would classify myself as a weak atheist, not an agnostic. I have reached a conclusion and that conclusion is that there are no gods in this universe. The fact that I have reached that conclusion means I am an atheist.

Your professor would likely argue that the fact that I would change my conclusion if new evidence presented itself, then that means that I am in doubt about my conclusion. It's a valid argument, but I just disagree with it.

Also, to look at it another way, say someone told me that:

10.08 to the power of 62 * the square root of 12,176.834534 = 37

I have no idea what 10.08 to the power of 62 * the square root of 12,176.834534 equals. I could look at the equation all I want and not come to a conclusion. All I know is that it's not 37.

Similarily, I have no idea what the evidence of what we've found out about the universe adds up to, all I know is that it doesn't add up to any kind of god.

--

I have no idea if either of those examples helps you out. Hopefully, they'll give you something to argue with him about, anyways.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: peteyh ]</p>

Skepticos

Stardust,

I will simply provide my definition of the term. I define "atheism" as "the absence of belief in the existence of a deity."

We can follow Antony Flew (I believe his discussion of this topic is in his book, "God, Freedom, and Immortality"), and recognize different types of atheism based upon the etymology of the term. When the prefix "a-" is added to an English word, this conveys the meaning "without." So, "atypical" means "not typical," or "without the condition of being typical." Thus, "atheism" means "non-theism," or "without the condition of being a theist."

The two types of atheism:

First, there is *positive* atheism, which is the belief that there is no deity. This type of atheism denies the existence of such a being. Thus, a positive atheist will state, "There is no god," or, "A god does not exist."

Second, there is *negative* atheism, which is simply the absence of belief concerning the existence of a deity. This is the wider of the two terms, and encompasses not only positive atheism, but agnosticism as well. As a consequence, agnostics are considered negative atheists given this interpretation of the term. Thus, a negative atheist will state, "I have no belief in the existence of a god." Notice the semantical difference: one is a denial, the other is a lack of affirmation.

But, the common usage of "atheism" does not take into account the negative type. In today's vernacular, "atheism" denotes only the positive type.

- Skepticos

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Skepticos ]</p>

Viti

You can show him this <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm" target="_blank">here</a> which discusses the definition debate.

Walter_Mitty

If you can find a copy of the "Encyclopedia of Unbelief" (1985) you will find a definition that supports your notion of atheism. There is also a few suggested readings at the end.

The entry supports much of the source that Ladyshea suggests.

-Biblio

Clutch

Well, that's not really sticking to his guns, because the Argument from a Dictionary is pretty small calibre. Sticking to his pea-shooter, maybe? Anyhow, to my knowledge there is no "accepted one" definition of atheism in philosophy tout court.

The thing for you to do, if you want to pursue the discussion with him, is to think of reasons why the definition he's choosing is a bad one (or, more positively, why the one you're presenting is better). You might appeal to etymology and the word's morphemes; the word just negates "theism", hence anyone not a theist is an a-theist. More forcefully, you might point out that "agnostic" has specific connotations of finding the evidence evenly split, which surely misdescribes, eg, someone who just has never thought of gods at all.

Basically, I'm suggesting you think about why a particular set of definitions might reflect the variety of views out there, and get your ducks in a row before taking it up with him. You might even do better to use email, letting you marshall your thoughts without feeling intimidated. Good luck!

Philosoft

As is always apropos in these 'definition' threads, I would like to point out that the common definition of 'strong' or 'positive' atheism is mostly a strawman, often egregiously so. There simply are no atheists who assert the unconditional non-existence of God. A statement such as, "God does not exist" carries the implication that 'God' has been defined, or at least described to the point that the hypothetical strong atheist concludes 'God' is logically contradictory.

Even a 'strong' atheist like myself can stipulate there might be a logically permissible entity, that has thus far eluded description, that might be given the moniker "God." Many deistic formulations are consistent with this view. Thus, I dismiss deisms on pragmatic grounds: their paucity of explanatory power and their unconfirmability.

I've come to think it exceedingly silly that atheists debate the question, "How strongly do you not believe in God?" at all. I know some atheist posters such as Goliath go to great lengths to distance themselves from the purported dogma of 'strong' atheism. But I feel quite confident that our relative 'strengths of belief' differ little, if at all. I realize many apologetic/evangelistic theists will latch on to any semblance of atheistic dogma and try to frame atheism as a form of religion. But we all answer the same to the question, "Do you belive God exists?"

In the end, I suppose if the distinction makes it easier for some atheists to avoid accusations of dogmatic/religious thinking, then it's probably worthwhile. But we've all heard the same apologetics and we all use the same refutations. It's a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Shadowy Man

And send him <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-huxley.html" target="_blank">here</a>
for a definition of agnosticism.

Brian63

Well, I have been converted to use the definitions given by Theodore Drange in his <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html" target="_blank">Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism </a>

Basically (if I recall correctly, it's been a while since I read this article), it boils down to how you respond to the proposition "God exists."

If you believe it is true or more likely true, you are a theist. If you believe it is false or more likely false, then you are an atheist. If you believe you do not have the tools to make a determination, you are an agnostic. If you think the proposition itself is completely incoherent, then you are a noncognitivist.

Basically, an atheist would hold the stronger belief that God does not exist, not just the weaker lack of belief that God does actually exist. Agnostics, atheists, and noncognitivists could all be grouped together under the label "nontheists."

I have found these labels/definitions to be quite practical (for reasons that he mentions in the article).

Brian

Laurentius

Atheism attempts to describe and explain the world without making use of (the claim of) any divine or metaphysical laws.

AVE