mattbballman

dear metcaf,

I disagree with this dilemma. Theism, as classically understood, is not the specific God of Christianity per se but the greatest conceivable being who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator of the universe and the absolute source of all objective moral values. Hence all of the Abrahamic faiths, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, are theists. Even more detrimental is the etymology of atheism. Many contemporary atheists make the mistake of thinking that the Greek a- is a term of negating belief of rather than a term of negation of. When we say asymmetry we do not mean the lack of belief in symmetry, we mean that something is not symmetrical. When we say amoral we do not mean the lack of belief in morality but that something is not moral. This contemporary deviation from its Greek roots is mind-boggling.

The point about objective normativity has already been explained. It makes no sense to speak of objective moral values in the absence of an immutable foundation. This was undergirded by those atheists I cited. One further complication with such a theory is this remarkable set of values that just so happens to anticipate humans evolving to such a state where they would feel obliged to follow them. So now the question becomes, Why should I adopt this ethereal value system?

matt

mattbballman

devnet,

Be careful. I'm not arguing for Bahnsen's theory that there are no atheists but just closet theists. And I don't absolve or exonerate theism as something that doesn't need to be proven -- it does. Theism is just as much a claim to know something about the world as atheism, so they both shoulder a need to argue for their respective cases. But I would add that deep down everyone is actually an agnostic until reasons surface for that suspension of belief to be filled by either atheism or theism.

matt

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by mattbballman:

"Theism, as classically understood, is not the specific God of Christianity per se but the greatest conceivable being who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator of the universe and the absolute source of all objective moral values."

Okay, and the ancient Greeks were atheists, as were members of hundreds of other faiths?

"When we say asymmetry we do not mean the lack of belief in symmetry, we mean that something is not symmetrical. When we say amoral we do not mean the lack of belief in morality but that something is not moral."

When we say a-theism we mean something is not theism.

"It makes no sense to speak of objective moral values in the absence of an immutable foundation."

Okay, there is an abstract mindless immutable foundation to them.

"One further complication with such a theory is this remarkable set of values that just so happens to anticipate humans evolving to such a state where they would feel obliged to follow them."

Huh? They happen to be valuable to the survival of certain genes, too.

"So now the question becomes, Why should I adopt this ethereal value system?"

Because it's objectively true.

seebs

I think in practice "atheist except with respect to..." is a silly concept. If you believe in any gods, you don't lack belief in any gods. Similarly, I would classify "positive atheism" in the abstract as the assertion that there is nothing supernatural out there - a perfectly reasonable position to hold on faith, whether or not one can provide "evidence" for it.

I do, however, object to the claim that I need evidence to believe something. That claim itself is not one I can support with evidence. There is some room for simply picking axioms out of a hat and accepting them because you like the resulting system.

mattbballman

metcaf,

Classically, atheism was the view that there is no god; hence, the classics were not atheists. Moreover, primary figureheads in Greek thought acceded the type of God of the Abrahamic faiths except they denied that such a being was personal. God, to the philosophers, was the conclusion to a set of premises (e.g., Plato and Aristotle).

Regarding atheism, it is right to say "not theism" or "no God/god." The latter Greek term theos means "God."

Regarding objective values, survival value is the best any atheist can justify for moral values. But this makes them non-objective and contingent on the habbits that homo sapiens develop during its evolutionary climb. This appeal to objective moral values apart from God is, in Richard Taylor's words, "weaving intellectual webs." And saying "It's objectively true because it's objectively true" is just a classic case of circular reasoning.


matt

luvluv

seebs:

Darn, that's good.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by mattbballman :

"Classically, atheism was the view that there is no god; hence, the classics were not atheists."

I'm sure they believed that their gods were the only gods that existed. Even so, suppose there is someone who believes that the Abrahamic God does not exist, but also believes that a very evil person -- otherwise qualitatively identical to that being -- does exist. That person would be an atheist, by your definition.

"Regarding atheism, it is right to say 'not theism' or 'no God/god.' The latter Greek term theos means 'God.'"

Yes, and therefore, an atheist is a person that has no theism, or has no god.

"Regarding objective values, survival value is the best any atheist can justify for moral values. But this makes them non-objective and contingent on the habbits that homo sapiens develop during its evolutionary climb."

Objectivity and contingency are not exclusive. Objectivity refers to mind-dependence and contingency refers to possible worlds. Even if minds did not exist, certain values would be better for survival than others.

"And saying 'It's objectively true because it's objectively true' is just a classic case of circular reasoning."

That's not what I said. You asked why one should adopt this system. I answered that because it's objectively true. Did you mean why I should believe these morals exist in the first place? My answer is that we seem to perceive that they exist, or that they are the consequences of the universe's existence. My position is in either case more parsimonious than yours.

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

seebs

I dunno about that. What does a "motherfucker" do?

I don't think argument from etymology is a reliable bet, although in this case I think it's close enough for government work.

That said, I would say that this definition flatly contradicts the idea that, denying other gods, the ancients were "atheists". They had gods; they cannot possibly have had no gods. To say that there are gods they did not have is pretty much irrelevant; it's only useful for the (very witty) "We are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do" line, but it's not actually *meaningful*. The word is tortured enough between weak atheism and strong atheism; I think we should use a different word for "doesn't believe in this particular God"; I suggest "believer/non-believer". I am a believer with respect to the Abrahamic God; I am a non-believer with respect to Zeus. I am not an "atheist" in any meaningful way.

Thomas Metcalf

seebs:

You're right that etymology won't be exactly right; I was merely adding it as another line of evidence. If we were to expand the etymology arguments, we'd find that agnosticism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief, so there could be agnostic atheists and agnostic theists (and gnostic atheists and gnostic theists).

I see some support for adopter "believer towards ..." And then an atheist would not be a believer towards any god. As I've argued earlier in this thread, it just won't do to say that an atheist is only someone who disbelieves in God X, or God Y, or God Z.

seebs

I think that works. I think "atheist with respect to..." turns out to be more a rhetorical trick than anything. "believer/non-believer in" doesn't lead to the same trick of rhetoric.

The real problem with "atheist" is that a great deal of existing writing uses it to refer to strong atheism, and that, to make it worse, a small number of people run around poisoning the well for weak atheism by using weak atheism as a defense ("no burden of proof, not making any claims") and then making claims dependant on strong atheism ("everyone who disagrees is wrong"). The word is nearly wrecked for conversational use, because there's a couple of meanings, and it's used rhetorically as often as technically. *sigh*.

At this point, the only thing I can do when I see "atheist" used in an argument or conversation is ask for clarification. If I can't do that, I tend to assume "strong atheist" in material more than a few years old, and reserve judgement in recent stuff.