Another definition of atheism

[Your Funny Uncle]

At TAM London someone said to me that their preferred definition of an atheist was neither someone who actively disbelieves in god nor someone who lacks belief in god, but someone who doesn't see the need to posit a god in the first place, thereby putting the emphasis on theists to prove their crazy claims. It may not be strictly correct in an etymological sense but I do think that it better describes my feelings on the matter.

*Edited to correct a grammatical error.

 

[lrkun]

At TAM London someone said to me that their preferred definition of an atheist was neither someone who actively disbelieves in god nor someone who lacks belief in god, but someone who didn't see the need to posit a god in the first place, thereby putting the emphasis on theists to prove their crazy claims. It may not be strictly correct in an etymological sense but I do think that it better describes my feelings on the matter.

I agree with whoever said that an atheist is one who didn't see the need to include god in the equation, because the equation is already complete and the god factor is a surplussage.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I agree with whoever said that an atheist is one who didn't see the need to include god in the equation, because the equation is already complete and the god factor is a surplussage.

Indeed. Why posit the existence of something that doesn't need to be there?

 

[lrkun]

I agree with whoever said that an atheist is one who didn't see the need to include god in the equation, because the equation is already complete and the god factor is a surplussage.

Indeed. Why posit the existence of something that doesn't need to be there?

This definition is concrete. It leaves the burden of proof completely on them.

 

[Andiferous]

I think this is the I am not a Nazi position. I don't think you're alone, there.

See, LRkun?

 

[Nelson]

I've used this argument before, mainly the point that Gods don't really offer any sort of explanation in a scientific context. Typically our standard for what we would call a satisfactory explanation is the ability to explain complex systems from as few simple assumptions as possible. Inserting God obviously fails miserably at this as you have to assume the existence of some absurdly complex being to explain a less complex system.

It may be the case that a deity actually is involved in some aspect of the universe that we can already explain through empirical laws (or maybe it is some aspect we can't explain, the argument works either way). This sort of conjecture is unfalsifiable, and fails to make our picture of the system any simpler. This simply moves the required explanation back one step to "what created God?", and we are now left with the task of explaining a considerably more complicated phenomenon (the existence of a supremely intelligent being). It is a step in the wrong direction for anyone actually concerned with gaining understanding, and so I think rejecting God as an answer in this context is a sound argument.

Unfortunately I don't think your friend at TAM is the origin of this idea. Wikipedia calls this "practical or pragmatic atheism":

The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.

That statement is a bit more individual than the argument I was making, but the basis seems to be the same.

 

[Aught3]

After extensive discussion on this site I've come to the conclusion that assigning the categories of atheist and theist is an ontological question. An atheist can accept the existence of all things revealed by sensory experience and the result of scientific exploration. A theist has to posit something extra in their ontology. It can't just be the relabelling of something physical like the wind, the planets, or the universe itself - an atheist accepts the existence of all those things. It has to be a distinct being or, at the very least, a distinct consciousness that the theist has belief in but the atheist does not.

Obviously this is a pretty inclusive definition of atheist. Included would be atheists, agnostics, non-believers, ignostics, sceptics, some Buddhists, Sikhs, and Daoists, pantheists, and some pagans. Because that list is so broad, I don't mind what the individual members want to call themselves. But none of these groups is ontologically distinct from atheists.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

Unfortunately I don't think your friend at TAM is the origin of this idea. Wikipedia calls this "practical or pragmatic atheism":

The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.

That statement is a bit more individual than the argument I was making, but the basis seems to be the same.

Oh he most assuredly didn't originate the idea (coming up with a truly fresh idea is a very tough thing to do anyway) but rather he related it to me. He did say who he'd heard it from originally but I'm terrible with names... Pragmatic atheism sounds right to me. It's the reason why I have no particular quarrel with deists. For all the difference it makes you may as well posit that a god started everything going; the universe we perceive remains the same either way.

 

[lrkun]

I think it's a nice idea to come up with a word where this is the definition.