Brian63

This is a carryover from another thread, but the original exchange was a bit off-topic from the vast majority of the rest of the thread, so it is being given its own thread. Also, the tone was getting a bit nasty in that thread, and I hope that all participants would be willing to avoid anything like that happening here. Let's make this one fun, productive, and educational with no hard-feelings at the end of it, ok?

---------------------------------------------------------

When I first began studying atheism, I quickly was able to realize how complex the issue of the existence/non-existence of God is, and how various labels and definitions can be used to distinguish between different beliefs on the issue. Many of the atheists here that I encountered have used the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" to describe their positions, and I saw the same terms used by philosophers George Smith and Michael Martin in their books defending atheism. I used this same terminology for quite some time and found it very useful.

At some point I read the (what I consider to be) superb article in the SecWeb library by philosopher Theodore Drange: "<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html" target="_blank">Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism </a>." He advocated a different way of defining the terms "atheism, agnosticism," etc. that involved dropping the "strong/weak" modifiers. I now believe this terminology to be a more useful one, and in this post (and thread) I will attempt to summarize and defend his usage of the terms, although I will certainly not be able to express myself as well as Drange was able to. Please bear with me.

His position can be summarized as saying that how you should be labeled depends on how you respond to the proposition "God exists." If you believe it is true or more likely true you would be a theist. If you believe it is false or more likely false you would be an atheist. If you believe there is insufficient evidence to make either determination then you are an agnostic. There is a 4th category, noncognitivist, that says the proposition is not even an intelligible one and is effectively gibberish to our ears. Atheists, agnostics, and noncognitivists can all be grouped together under the title "nontheist."

This is in contrast to the system of defining the terms that seems to be popular around here. In this, every person can be divided into one of two groups. You either believe that God exists or you do not believe that God exists, and you are then labeled as a theist or atheist, respectively (noncognitivists could be accounted for as well here, but including them is not particularly necessary for this thread, I believe, and only complicates things). Within the half of "atheism" people can be further divided. A person that merely lacks belief in the existence of God would be considered a "weak atheist." A person that makes the stronger claim "I believe that God does not exist" would be deemed a "strong atheist."

Agnostics can be divided also. If you believe that you personally are unable to say whether or not you believe God exists, because you have not seen sufficient evidence either way, but you believe that such evidence is at least in principle possible to obtain, you would be considered a "weak agnostic." If you believe that it is *impossible* in principle for anybody to obtain the necessary evidence at any time, then you would be considered a "strong agnostic," or something similar.

Of course, there may be variations on how these terms may be defined, but hopefully what I outlined above is the general idea.

Hopefully, after all the exchanges made in the previous thread, we can agree that there is no "correct" or "incorrect" way of defining these terms. Language does not offer us such luxuries. We are left to determine which definitions/labels are *preferrable* but that falls far short of saying that one of them is *correct.* So let's try to avoid all remarks about one method being "correct" or not, since we'll just be going in gigantic circles if that happens.

Moving on...

I believe the second method suffers from some problems however that render it less desireable for use. There seems to be, from my perspective at least, redundancy in the meanings of terms. I see little to no difference between the meanings of "weak atheist" and "weak agnostic." Having these two terms to express the same concept is a bit clumsy (and yes, there are examples of other words in the English language that refer to the same exact concept, but pointing those out does not in any way refute my contention here). They may be combined together to become "agnostic atheist" or something like that, but this is just a bit of an unnecessary complication.

The first method does not suffer from that problem. The meanings of the terms are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all possibilities, which are beneficial qualities. A person can not be an atheist and an agnostic, or an agnostic and a theist, etc. but must be one of those.

More: according to the second method, newborn babies would be considered "atheists" since they lack belief in God. There is nothing *wrong* or *incorrect* about such a label, but it seems just bizarre to me to include babies who have no concept of the idea of God and certainly have never heard the term with those of us that can at least conceptualize God and are familiar with its general meaning, but believe such a thing does not exist. The first method also avoids this problem, I believe. Newborn babies, I gather, would be considered noncognitivists. If they later become familiar with the meaning of the phrase "God exists" and believe it establishes an intelligible proposition, they can then acquire a different label.

There are probably two major objections to the first method of defining the terms that would also effectively support the second method, but I believe both objections do not succeed.

1. A reference to the etymology of the words "theist" and "atheist" can be used. Goliath in our previous thread was making this claim, and so I will copy/paste his words:

I believe this argument fails for 2 reasons. First, meanings of words change over time and across space, but I do not hear proponents of this argument suggesting that we should return to the original meanings of all words in our language. I will assume that they mean to make the more modest claim that the original meanings of words is one important factor among many to consider when defining words in current usage, and that some weight should be given to keeping definitions consistent throughout time and space. This I will agree with, but will also make sure to clarify again that there are other factors to consider as well that may override those concerns. That does not mean in any way that newer definitions are "superior" to older definitions by absolute necessity, only that the older definitions need not be held onto solely for the sake of them being older or original. Since this whole issue is largely a subjective matter, you may feel that the original meanings of words overrides other factors while I say the opposite, but neither of us could be considered to have the "right" or "wrong" view on the subject. It is a matter of preference.

The second reason that I believe this objection fails is expressed by Drange himself, which follows:

So the etymology of the term "atheist" may mean either "no belief in God" or "belief in no God." What the original meanings behind the terms were is a bit fuzzy, so I don't think a large amount of weight should be granted to that as a determining factor.

2. The second major objection would be that the first classification is out-of-step with current usage (either among the general population or specifically among atheists) while the second is more in-line. That is, if a person merely said "I do not believe God exists" they would be considered by most others (either the general population or the nontheist population) to be an atheist.

Actually, I agree that most people would believe this.

However, if instead a person said "I am undecided on the issue of the existence of God" I would venture to guess that most people in the public would consider that person to be an "agnostic" and not an "atheist." The two statements can be interpreted as meaning the exact same thing to those with more trained ears and thus the same label could apply to both ("atheist" according to the advocates of the second classification of definitions), but I would believe that most of the lay public would NOT agree that that person is an atheist, but they would merely identify the person as an "agnostic." An implication of my position is that the vast majority of the public is largely ignorant about all things atheism and their beliefs are blatantly contradictory, but I doubt those here would dispute that claim. Of course, I have not conducted any scientific polls to offer as support, but I doubt anyone else has done such things to support their respective positions either. We all rely on our own personal experiences and observations which of course differ from everyone else's.

Put another way, I would suggest that most people would not understand the difference between the two statements "I do not believe that God exists" and "I believe that God does not exist," and thus would not understand the difference between "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" unless it is clearly explained. "Weak atheist" though would include a person who says "I'm undecided on the existence of God" according to advocates of the second position, although I believe most of the lay public would object to calling them "atheists" and would prefer to call them "agnostics." Therefore, I do not believe that the second system of definitions is more in-sync with the general public's understanding.

As a general note, I personally do not believe a strong claim can be made either way as to which classification coincides closer to actual usage, and an argument that rests on exactly that assumption is a shaky one. If anything, I believe the first system is a little bit closer, but I will not delve into that at the moment.

---------------------------------------------------------

Goliath, in the previous thread you claimed more than once that I "will continue to say that [atheism] can be defined differently...without offering any compelling reasons as to why such a redefinition is necessary." Well, I believe that if you believe that then you have grossly misunderstood my position (although I have attempted to make it as clear as I can), but I will not get into that. Hopefully, it is clear in this post that I am NOT merely making the claim that "atheist" can be defined in different ways, but also that there are compelling reasons to adopt the first system of defining the terms over the second.

I appreciatively await constructive feedback, but I will not respond to posts that are condescending in nature, despite any strong counterarguments that are contained within. If you can't play nice, don't play at all.

Brian

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Philosoft

One problem I see with Drange's 'agnostic' is it's fundamentally identical to his 'atheist.' Belief is an positive action or a state-of-mind. An atheist, by definition, does not perform this action or lacks this state-of-mind. Saying the agnostic lacks the information to make a determination is a cop-out. It's an invalid attempt to broaden a dichotomous situation. Either belief obtains or it does not. If one can't make a determination, one does not believe. QED.

The Other Michael

Hi Brian63,

I think you've left out the possiblity of being a strong atheist with respect to a particular god concept, while being a weak atheist or agnostic with respect to other god concepts.

I'd hazard that most theists are strong atheists with respect to all the god concepts outside their own beliefs.

cheers,
Michael

Brian63

I'll respond to these two quickly, then hit the bed and catch other responses later.

The Other Michael,

I purposely did not mention about those labels being references to particular gods because I did not think it was necessary, for this thread at least. Whether a person is atheist/theist/agnostic/whatever to GodA and something different with respect to GodB does not change what the meanings of the terms "agnostic/atheist/theist" are themselves. But you are absolutely right that a single individual can hold various positions on various conceptions of God.

Philo,

I think you just summarized the terminology of the second system, but did not really rebut any of the arguments that I put forth. Perhaps you could rephrase for me? I do not want to misunderstand people's arguments. Thanks.

Brian

Defiant Heretic

Wow. Considering how complicated these definitions are, maybe we should just make the 'beliefs' section of our profiles paragraph length so we can all explain exactly where we stand.

All in all, you posted a pretty good summary of the different positions, however I would add a couple off classifications.

• Atheistic Agnostic - Still undecided, but leaning toward atheism.
• Theistic Agnostic - Still undecided, but leaning toward theism.
• Dogmatic Atheist/Theist - Absolutely convinced of their position; cannot be persuaded.

As an example of why we need that last one: I consider myself to be a strong atheist, however I admit the possibility that I may be wrong. I just consider that possibility to be so minute that it would be misleading to say I'm an agnostic or a weak atheist.

A lot of people seem to think that when one says 'strong atheist' that they're referring to a dogmatic atheist, which is not accurate in my case, and is most likely inaccurate in many other cases as well.

Philosoft

At this point, I find little fault with your argument. I have come to regard it as silly to debate "I have no God-belief" vs. "God does not exist." In my dialogues, I have seen nothing to reliably distinguish "strong" from "weak" atheists, save for the mere terminology they use to describe their own belief systems. I think the constant inaccurate portrayal of the "strong" atheist as a dogmatic ideologue, and the desire not to be so labeled, has been the impetus behind the division, not anything atheists themselves actually recongnize as different among individual belief-strengths.

That said, being the cynic I am, I admit a certain suspicion that any theist who embeds himself in the ongoing semantic debate is attempting to set up a situation whereby atheism can be, if not discreditied, equivocated with theism as a system of mere faith. I strongly abhor this position, and if it is your intention to pursue it, be prepared Boy Scout.

Goliath

Brian63,

I'll give an in-depth reply later, but this part of your post jumped out at me:

All of these positions involve beliefs. You have ignored the case of people such as myself who hold absolutely no beliefs whatsoever regarding anything supernatural. Therefore your system of atheism seems incomplete.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

Defiant Heretic

I believe Drange briefly covers degrees of confidence in the existence/nonexistence of God and allows for that to be conveyed by actually positing the terms "strong" and "weak" in front of theist/atheist. Although they are the same words that are used in the terms that he is criticizing, he uses them in a different way for the most part. So, if you are fairly confident that the proposition "God exists" is true, then you would be a "strong theist," and likewise for the atheist.

Philo

I do not hold the position that atheism involves a "faith" similar to that of the typical Christian, although epistemology is not exactly my forte. There could be something there, but if there is I am not aware of it. You won't see me arguing for that view anytime soon.

Goliath

I am unsure of what you mean by "hold absolutely no beliefs whatsoever regarding anything supernatural." It seems to me that you could replace "God" with "supernatural" in the original proposition and come up with a mirror image of Drange's classification system. If you believe the supernatural exists, you would be a "theosupernaturalist" or something like that (I'm making up terms here), if you believe it does not exist you would be an "asupernaturalist" and if you believe you do not have enough evidence to make that determination you would be an "agnosticsupernaturalist." Non-cognitivists could also be similarly defined.

When you say you hold no beliefs, I am not sure if you mean that you believe the supernatural does not exist or you are undecided on whether or not it exists. I don't see how it could be anything else (besides noncognitivist with regard to the supernatural). So my question to you would be: Is it true that a supernatural realm exists? Your answer would have to fall into one of the following categories-more likely yes/more likely no/completely unsure/question isn't intelligible as stated. So yes, I do see that particular system of definitions as being exhaustive of all possibilities, or to borrow your reference, "complete."

---------------------------------------------------------

In the interest of the never-ending quest for fun, I'll try to make some criticisms of my OP that I was considering after I wrote it, and ask for input as to whether you think they are valid or not.

1. I wonder if, under the definitions presented by Drange, it is even possible for a person to be an agnostic. Is it possible that a person can really be completely undecided about the existence/nonexistence of God, and to give the original proposition about a 50/50 chance of being true, without leaning either way? I doubt it. So, there may have to be some leeway as to calling people agnostics, and include people that are 55/45 or 45/55 or something like that, or else allow that the set of "agnostics" is an empty set.

2. Drange says this (repeated here):

My objection rests on an uncertainty over the meaning of the small phrase "the" as in "theism" or "atheism." Does anyone know the root meaning of that word? If it means "belief in God" then I believe Drange is incorrect in his application. "Theism" would be most precisely defined as "having belief in God," while "a-theism" would be "not having belief in God" or "without having belief in God." It is an absence of belief or a presence of belief.

He seems to interpret it as meaning "God" in which case "theism" would be "presence of God" while "a-theism" would be "no presence of God" or "without presence of God."

The first interpretation focuses more on the person's beliefs, while the second focuses more on the existence/nonexistence of God, independent of belief. In such a case, I'd believe that atheism presently defined as "absence of belief in God" is more closely in tune with the original meaning. (However, I still do not think that is a hugely significant factor in defining "atheism" and I believe that the other objection still is legitimate.)

Thoughts?

Brian

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Goliath

Brian,

I'm not sure how to clarify. Basically, my honest answer to "Do you believe X?" where X is a statement that has anything to do with anything supernatural (eg gods, ghosts, etc), then my answer is always "No."

I don't think so. In fact, let's do just that (using your paraphrasing of his system, emphasis mine):

Note that every option that you've listed involves holding a belief. Since I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding any supernatural proposition, I do not fit into your system of definitions for atheism, agnosticism, noncognitivism, and theism.

(emphasis mine in the following quote)

Again, I believe nothing when it comes to supernatural claims. So, what you've just said does not apply to me.

It means that I hold no belief as to whether anything supernatural exists or does not exist.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! My answer would be "Unknown." Note, however, that this answer does not involve holding a belief. So, under the definition system that you've prescribed, what is the label for someone whose complete and total list of beliefs regarding anything supernatural is the following:

Nothing.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(Edited to fix UBB code)

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Brian63

I believe this is very similar to the option I gave of "completely unsure." So you would be an "agnosticsupernaturalist" if we wanted to use that term. So yes, this classification of definitions DOES account for your beliefs.

Keep in mind that your answer of "unknown" does not preclude you from either believing in the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, if you define "know" in a very strict sense. If you limit the definition of "know" to things demonstrated through logical/mathematical proofs (and thus mere "evidence" does not constitute knowledge), then a person that believes the supernatural realm exists could still provide the same answer you have and be consistent. They believe it does, but they do not know it does. For this reason, I believe your answer of "unknown" is still too vague, especially if you mean "know" in the stricter sense (I am interpreting in the less stricter sense, in which case your position is accounted for by Drange's classification).

I am interpreting it as meaning that not only do you not have proof of the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, but you also do not hold what you consider to be even evidence of the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. If this is true, then again you are an "agnosticsupernaturalist" and there is a way to account for you in this system.

I would say that that question and answer are vague, and not precisely formulated enough to be answered. A more precise phrasing would be similar to the one I and Drange gave: Is it true that the supernatural exists? And then the previous answers would be provided.

Let's try this via another approach:

Replace "supernatural" in YOUR question with another word, say "elves." How do you interpret the assertion "I hold no beliefs regarding elves." Is it possible to do such a thing? I believe that it is impossible, and that we are psychologically incapable of not forming beliefs of agreement/disagreement about various propositions upon encountering them. If I say "X is true" then you are pretty much forced to garner some kind of general feeling of agreement or disagreement with me. Replace "X" with "supernatural" and I believe it holds true still. You have some kind of general feeling of agreement or disagreement with the statement "The supernatural exists" (or so it seems to me upon my observations and experiences).

Brian

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>