Metaphor and the Athiest Propaganda Model

[Zetetic]

The human brain reasons in terms of metaphor. These metaphors drive expectations and help us frame future and current events. When tow actions are seen to occur simultaneously, the brain physically links them together into a frame. For instance, a a restaurant. You picture being seated, having a menu, having a waiter or waitress, waiting for your food, getting the food etc. Sounds pretty straightforward, fairly mundane right? Well, not to professor of cognitive science and linguistics at UC Berkeley George Lakoff. He points out that all public debates are framed in terms of metaphor in order to create a public conception of certain events.

Take the first Gulf war. It follows the paradigm of a Hero (US) saving a victim (Kuwait) from a crazed villain (Iraq). Lakoff has a detailed metaphorical analysis of the propaganda surrounding the Gulf War here http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Lakoff_Gulf_Metaphor_1.html

The following video outlines his position more generally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM


So looking at the points he makes with respect to the tendency of modern progressivism, I see certain parallels with the atheist movement. There is a tendency to expect people to reason to the right conclusion, if they don't they are assumed to be stupid or hopelessly ignorant and so they get ignored. The problem is that most people fit in to the ignore category. Why? Is it because most people are too stupid to reason to the truth? No, they simply haven't internalized the framework that allows for seemingly straightforward enlightenment style thought and argumentation. Those who are atheists typically have done so. So there is an apparent disconnect, and this is because there is an actual disconnect. Scientists, philosophers, mathematicians and in general people who are highly trained and highly educated think differently and have a highly refined framework through which discussion takes place. If you haven't gone to college or if you attended college but weren't ever very academically inclined and didn't pursue academic interests in your free time, you probably never internalized that highly refined framework.

So how do you relate to all of the people who haven't internalized the argumentative framework you have? Create a propaganda model! What is a propaganda model? It sounds sinister and duplicitous! Why can't they just go and internalize the necessary framework? Because it is impractical for most people to spend the years necessary to do so.

So what is a propaganda model and why does it work? Well, the general idea is that you study cognitive science and psychology and find clever ways to tie atheist and rationalist values into everyday life, but not just into everyday life; into the very mental framework of the average person. You have to tie it in to good things like family values, understanding, a better more secure future, self empowerment etc. Of course real research would absolutely be a requirement. A few atheist think tanks would help, for instance.

So, what are your thoughts?

 

[lrkun]

The model's a fine idea, it's worth testing, but I propose something that goes with the theme of individuality. I don't want to see atheism turned into a group thing or likened to a church.

 

[Gnug215]

This is very interesting stuff, Zetetic.

I'll check the video you link to later, but this stuff is something I've been thinking about for a while.

I mean, we (the "rationalist" community) can't just label everyone else as being stupid or ignorant if they don't think like us. There has to be some kind of explanation that is a little more complex and nuanced.

I just want to share two links that talk about cognitive phenomenons that I think play a part in all this:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/

http://jangosteve.com/post/380926251/no-one-knows-what-theyre-doing

 

[Zetetic]

Gnug215; Fortunately I frequent LessWrong and I have found a number of interesting ideas there. I think that you sort of point to a more general problem; we are self fashioned 'rationalists' and yet we often take a very non-inquisitive or dismissive approach to different viewpoints when we have the tools to launch decent attacks on other viewpoints. There has to be a clear cut reason to embrace rationalism instead of some other approach to understanding reality. Why does one work better? What is it that allows us to understand why one works better? What are the concrete benfits of choosing one approach as opposed to another?

This is done at a high level by people like ThunderF00t, but he fails to connect to many people (not just fundies and people who are indoctrinated, as is the seemingly popular irrationalism among self fashioned atheists presupposes). There seems to be an underlying presumption that because atheism is natural to atheists, that a simple set of logical arguments can make the position seem intuitively correct to anyone of reasonable intelligence. This is a false assumption. So the task should be to figure out what is really needed to promote rationalism, because doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results isn't exactly rational.

 

[Andiferous]

I have a lot to say on this but am going to try to break it up. Mostly because I don't want to miscommunicate a post that is about miscommunication

This is a neat idea. However, bear in mind that this metaphor theory is ironically, a metaphor of its own. It's one way to explain subjectivity. So for clarity I think any study of this concept should be tempered by the knowledge that it is just one template (or, I suppose you could say, metaphor ) for human behaviour. Did that make sense?

I do think the concept is legitimate, but definition and explanation of it is fuzzy at best. There are numerous psychological theories that have tried to address the same thing in different terms. I hate bringing up fallacies, but someone has coined this the "mind fallacy." The assumption that we all think the same way.

I've got a weakness for literature by Samuel Beckett, and one of his concepts has always stuck in my mind. (I've highlighted the important bit).

Vladimir: Was I sleeping, while the others suffered? Am I sleeping now? Tomorrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of today? That with Estragon my friend, at this place, until the fall of night, I waited for Godot? That Pozzo passed, with his carrier, and that he spoke to us? Probably. But in all that what truth will there be? (Estragon, having struggled with his boots in vain, is dozing off again. Vladimir looks at him.) He'll know nothing. He'll tell me about the blows he received and I'll give him a carrot. (Pause.) Astride of a grave and a difficult birth. Down in the hole, lingeringly, the grave digger puts on the forceps. We have time to grow old. The air is full of our cries. (He listens.) But habit is a great deadener. (He looks again at Estragon.) At me too someone is looking, of me too someone is saying, He is sleeping, he knows nothing, let him sleep on. (Pause.) I can't go on! (Pause.) What have I said?

It's a confusing quote, but Beckett typically addresses failures in language and in communication and general human subjectivity. And he does it partly by demonstration, and confusing people. Habit, in this situation, is a bit like the idea of the mind "metaphor" addressed above.

Studies have shown, for instance, that monkeys will put a lot of thought into choosing an item by colour when first introduced to the opportunity. But after they have "chosen" their favourite colour the first time, they consistently chose the same colour without time or contemplation at all. Their choices become a kind of reaction or "habit" and generally, don't rethink their choice of "favourite colour." And I think that's how habits are born. I can try to find the source if necessary but feel lazy.

We've got a lot of choices in our lives, and so contemplating each one every time we are faced with a choice is a real pain in the arse. So we start forming these little habitual patterns to help get through those decisions. And I agree we run the risk of thinking entirely in habitual patterns (or metaphors) as I understand it, closing ourselves to contemplation or re-evaluation, and misinterpreting things by consequence of this problem.

I don't know if a word of this came accross. This is a topic I get pretty excited about. But I think this principle is at the root of your post, so thought perhaps it might be useful to address before discussing further.

Cuz talking about miscommunication is confusing.

 

[lrkun]

So, if we do this, can you atleast provide an example that can serve as a pattern?

I think if we study something similar to this idea, then we can atleast make adjustments and continue from there.

 

[Gnug215]

So I watched the George Lakoff video. Very good stuff. And I think I agree with all of it.

I think it would serve us all well to think of, and talk about, the "fundamental metaphor" inside our minds - that basic, core mind-construct that defines our personality and worldview.

The use of the term "propaganda" has been mentioned as problematic, and I'd agree with that, so why not use Lakoff's term, "framing" - and as he says: "honestly understanding what's really going on"?

I'm not sure if it would do us much good to understand this basic framing in terms of pointing it out to the fundies, but I'm fairly sure we'd still be able to use it to our advantage, at least in understanding ourselves better, and presenting our case better. It should probably also help us to more quickly identify the "lost causes", of which there are many out there - such as Neph and SoG. It's like we're speaking a different language than they are.

Lakoff used the family metaphor to explain the fundamental differences between the liberals and conservatives. Is it even possible to do the same thing with atheists and theists?

 

[lrkun]

So I watched the George Lakoff video. Very good stuff. And I think I agree with all of it.

I think it would serve us all well to think of, and talk about, the "fundamental metaphor" inside our minds - that basic, core mind-construct that defines our personality and worldview.

The use of the term "propaganda" has been mentioned as problematic, and I'd agree with that, so why not use Lakoff's term, "framing" - and as he says: "honestly understanding what's really going on"?

I'm not sure if it would do us much good to understand this basic framing in terms of pointing it out to the fundies, but I'm fairly sure we'd still be able to use it to our advantage, at least in understanding ourselves better, and presenting our case better. It should probably also help us to more quickly identify the "lost causes", of which there are many out there - such as Neph and SoG. It's like we're speaking a different language than they are.

Lakoff used the family metaphor to explain the fundamental differences between the liberals and conservatives. Is it even possible to do the same thing with atheists and theists?

We'll know when we test it. ^_^

 

[Zetetic]

Lakoff used the family metaphor to explain the fundamental differences between the liberals and conservatives. Is it even possible to do the same thing with atheists and theists?

I am under the impression that as we become more skilled and knowledgeable in neuroscience, we will be able to design and implement good experiments that will lead to a good, useful answer of the question 'how should we act?'. We want to maximize certain things; wealth, happiness, freedom, knowledge, understanding, peace. We want to minimize others; poverty, discontent, lack of control, ignorance, intolerance when it is unnecessary. These are concrete problems, for the most part. I think that it is quite likely that by better understanding the physical architecture of the mind we will be able to invent useful ideas and mental states and be able to implement them physically and directly.

In the mean time, we have to deal with implementing useful memes by argumentation and propaganda. We have to work to try to figure out what memes seem useful, and sometimes we will be wrong. This is very dangerous, and I think we all know what a bad meme can lead to. Never the less, we have to make our best effort and I don't think we are doing so.

Atheism needs to adopt the position of pragmatism "If it seems to work well, use it". We, as a community, hold to realism "Reality is what it appears to be, it is independent of observers". We need to embrace marketing tactics that are used against us and we need to be more effective than our opponents. We need to look at marketing techniques both to persuade and to defend ourselves against such persuasion. The realist pragmatism that we would adopt should unfold thusly: We sell the idea to person A. Then person A is open to argumentation. We present the strongest possible arguments to person A so that our position feels totally natural. Person A eventually comes to understand the process by which he was convinced. This may lead to the feeling of being tricked, but the spell is already broken. They have internalized our framework. They will then question our ideology. They will do so in terms of realist pragmatism, they will find our arguments more convincing from that standpoint than the arguments against it and find that they are not comfortable with the other perspective. They will embrace realist pragmatism.

Sounds too good to be true! The hard part is selling the idea, the second hardest part is getting them to internalize our useful framework. The nice thing is that it seems intuitively true to me that the person would have to internalize a very logical and aware mindset in order to realize that he or she had been coerced to our position, so by that point the position would justify itself. I could see this sort of manipulation going horribly awry, so utmost caution would be necessary. We don't want people who are touting the party line and not following the party ideology. They would discredit the movement.

What I am convinced of is that cognitive science will allow for more and more effective manipulation tactics. What I am worried about is that these tactics will become more and more widely embraced by those wanting to take advantage of people who have weak mental defenses. This is why rationalists have to become skilled at implementing lessons from fields like behavioral economics and marketing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhjUJTw2i1M

Many of us come from academia or at least have post graduate degrees in a scientific discipline or at least plan to obtain one. The importance of intellectual honesty is deeply instilled in us, and this approach seems to fly in the face of this. It seems like trickery, and it is trickery. The intention may be that the tricked learn that they have been tricked and in doing so further embrace our point of view, but it still requires trickery. The problem is that research tells us that we cannot achieve what we want to achieve (a general acceptance of realism and pragmatism and systematic rationality) with traditional intellectual honesty. We have to learn how to evoke a political movement. We have to affect the education system. We have to use propaganda. We have to set up our system so that we don't end up promoting a meme that is destructive. We have to try to push for the ultimate realization of the utility pragmatics and systematic rationality.

What is systematic rationality? The pursuit of tools and hueristics that lead to better decision making.
What is pragmatics? The view that heuristics are good, better heuristics are better and that we should above all concentrate on having good heuristics and a useful worldview.
What is realism? The view that we can trust our senses to give us a good idea about reality barring a defect in our senses. Even if our senses have systematic defects, we can adapt our view to account for them so that it will be more useful.

 

[UNFFwildcard]

The human brain reasons in terms of metaphor. These metaphors drive expectations and help us frame future and current events. When tow actions are seen to occur simultaneously, the brain physically links them together into a frame. For instance, a a restaurant. You picture being seated, having a menu, having a waiter or waitress, waiting for your food, getting the food etc. Sounds pretty straightforward, fairly mundane right? Well, not to professor of cognitive science and linguistics at UC Berkeley George Lakoff. He points out that all public debates are framed in terms of metaphor in order to create a public conception of certain events.

Take the first Gulf war. It follows the paradigm of a Hero (US) saving a victim (Kuwait) from a crazed villain (Iraq). Lakoff has a detailed metaphorical analysis of the propaganda surrounding the Gulf War here http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Lakoff_Gulf_Metaphor_1.html

The following video outlines his position more generally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM


So looking at the points he makes with respect to the tendency of modern progressivism, I see certain parallels with the atheist movement. There is a tendency to expect people to reason to the right conclusion, if they don't they are assumed to be stupid or hopelessly ignorant and so they get ignored. The problem is that most people fit in to the ignore category. Why? Is it because most people are too stupid to reason to the truth? No, they simply haven't internalized the framework that allows for seemingly straightforward enlightenment style thought and argumentation. Those who are atheists typically have done so. So there is an apparent disconnect, and this is because there is an actual disconnect. Scientists, philosophers, mathematicians and in general people who are highly trained and highly educated think differently and have a highly refined framework through which discussion takes place. If you haven't gone to college or if you attended college but weren't ever very academically inclined and didn't pursue academic interests in your free time, you probably never internalized that highly refined framework.

So how do you relate to all of the people who haven't internalized the argumentative framework you have? Create a propaganda model! What is a propaganda model? It sounds sinister and duplicitous! Why can't they just go and internalize the necessary framework? Because it is impractical for most people to spend the years necessary to do so.

So what is a propaganda model and why does it work? Well, the general idea is that you study cognitive science and psychology and find clever ways to tie atheist and rationalist values into everyday life, but not just into everyday life; into the very mental framework of the average person. You have to tie it in to good things like family values, understanding, a better more secure future, self empowerment etc. Of course real research would absolutely be a requirement. A few atheist think tanks would help, for instance.

So, what are your thoughts?

Sounds like something out of Screwtape's and Slubgob's tempter training manuals....

 

[Nelson]

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this approach. For me, creating a world full of atheists is not the end game here. I suppose in some sense it is, but this is merely a side effect. Ideally we would have a world full of people who think rationally, and who are at least somewhat versed in the scientific method. Atheism is a result of applying this methodology, not an end to strive for.

If you create a group of people who are "converted" to atheism through propaganda, they will still lack sufficient critical thinking skills to make good decisions when they are presented with new situations and information. So now the masses agree with us on this one point "there is likely no god", but they may not agree on other things like equal rights for different sexes, races, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Or maybe they don't understand enough about the scientific method to determine whether or not there is a solid case for global warming or vaccines, so they reject those as well.

My problem with creationists, religious or spiritual folk, the anti-vaccination movement, flat-earthers, aids-denialists, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, and other similar positions in general has never really been about belief X vs. belief Y. It has always been about the methodology (or lack thereof) by which they acquire their beliefs. THIS is the real thing to be spreading. In my opinion, attempting to spread atheism without critical thinking and the scientific method, ENTIRELY misses the point. Attempting to spread atheism at all just seems ridiculous to me. I've never thought about my beliefs in this way. It has always been about spreading the scientific method, not the resulting knowledge.

Edit: minor typo

 

[lrkun]

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this approach. For me, creating a world full of atheists is not the end game here. I suppose in some sense it is, but this is merely a side effect. Ideally we would have a world full of people who think rationally, and who are at least somewhat versed in the scientific method. Atheism is a result of applying this methodology, not an ends to strive for.

If you create a group of people who are "converted" to atheism through propaganda, they will still lack sufficient critical thinking skills to make good decisions when they are presented with new situations and information. So now the masses agree with us on this one point "there is likely no god", but they may not agree on other things like equal rights for different sexes, races, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Or maybe they don't understand enough about the scientific method to determine whether or not there is a solid case for global warming or vaccines, so they reject those as well.

My problem with creationists, religious or spiritual folk, the anti-vaccination movement, flat-earthers, aids-denialists, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, and other similar positions in general has never really been about belief X vs. belief Y. It has always been about the methodology (or lack thereof) by which they acquire their beliefs. THIS is the real thing to be spreading. In my opinion, attempting to spread atheism without critical thinking and the scientific method, ENTIRELY misses the point. Attempting to spread atheism at all just seems ridiculous to me. I've never thought about my beliefs in this way. It has always been about spreading the scientific method, not the resulting knowledge.

Whether or not a person has faith, is an atheist, theist, agnostic. The highlighted portion of Nelson's argument is the most important thing to have in life. (My opinion)

Well said. If a propaganda is needed, it's for the promotion of the highlighted portion.

 

[Zetetic]

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this approach. For me, creating a world full of atheists is not the end game here. I suppose in some sense it is, but this is merely a side effect. Ideally we would have a world full of people who think rationally, and who are at least somewhat versed in the scientific method. Atheism is a result of applying this methodology, not an ends to strive for.

I agree. I think that starting with atheism is putting the cart before the horse. What we want to do is to promote specific heuristics that lead to rational thought. If we can promote good heuristics for thinking about reality via relating them to something more intrinsic and comfortable to people, then we will have made progress. I think that this could possibly be done through the educational system.

The educational system is very obviously not set up to maximize the individual's ability to think rationally and creatively. It's purpose is to condition the individual for interaction with existing power structures rather than encouraging that those power structures be challenged. I think that it would be much more useful to do heavy duty training in rationalism and problem solving during the ages from 6 to 14 and then once that foundation is built, to more heavily regiment what knowledge is imparted to the individual in the classroom setting.

The only way to so radically alter the classroom setting is over a long period of time and through political machinations. The educational system is highly politicized. It is also highly regimented all the way down, which is problematic. It explicitly discourages creative thought.

The thing is, I think that it is reasonable to be politically manipulative in a very systematic way in order to push for more science in the class room and to subvert the long standing institutional deficiencies in the educational system. If you can introduce real rationality and critical thought in the formative years, it seems to me less likely that staunchly dogmatic worldviews will follow. Or rather, it at least seems that more useful worldviews will win out over ones that are less based in reality and more based in an excess of dogmatism.

 

[Andiferous]

:shock:

 

[Nautyskin]

Agree with Nelson and Zetetic here.

I'm wondering how many parents would oppose their children learning critical thinking skills...

Probably more than I'd like to imagine :|

 

[Andiferous]

Are you being completely serious? This is sounding more than a little insane. If you don't mind my saying. By what I know of you, I don't think you're insane, by default.

In the mean time, we have to deal with implementing useful memes by argumentation and propaganda[...]

We, as a community [...]

Sounds too good to be true! The hard part is selling the idea, the second hardest part is getting them to internalize our useful framework. The nice thing is that it seems intuitively true to me that the person would have to internalize a very logical and aware mindset in order to realize that he or she had been coerced to our position, so by that point the position would justify itself. I could see this sort of manipulation going horribly awry, so utmost caution would be necessary. We don't want people who are touting the party line and not following the party ideology. They would discredit the movement.


Many of us come from academia or at least have post graduate degrees in a scientific discipline or at least plan to obtain one. The importance of intellectual honesty is deeply instilled in us, and this approach seems to fly in the face of this. It seems like trickery, and it is trickery. The intention may be that the tricked learn that they have been tricked and in doing so further embrace our point of view, but it still requires trickery. The problem is that research tells us that we cannot achieve what we want to achieve (a general acceptance of realism and pragmatism and systematic rationality) with traditional intellectual honesty. We have to learn how to evoke a political movement. We have to affect the education system. We have to use propaganda. We have to set up our system so that we don't end up promoting a meme that is destructive.<i></i> We have to try to push for the ultimate realization of the utility pragmatics and systematic rationality.

 

[Nautyskin]

Are you being completely serious? This is sounding more than a little insane. If you don't mind my saying. By what I know of you, I don't think you're insane, by default.

*cough*

That'll learn me for reading only the three posts at the end of a thread ..

That wasn't the post I was agreeing with

 

[mirandansa]

The educational system is very obviously not set up to maximize the individual's ability to think rationally and creatively. It's purpose is to condition the individual for interaction with existing power structures rather than encouraging that those power structures be challenged. I think that it would be much more useful to do heavy duty training in rationalism and problem solving during the ages from 6 to 14 and then once that foundation is built, to more heavily regiment what knowledge is imparted to the individual in the classroom setting.

[pink emphasis by mirandansa]

Some terminological note...

"Rationalism" is often contrasted with "empiricism". Rationalism holds that knowledge comes from reason (intellectual deduction) that is not sensory; empiricism holds that knowledge comes from evidence (experienced sense-data) that is not conceptual.

I don't think rationalism itself is the horse for atheism. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz... they were staunch rationalists, and they were theists (in fact, their theism was based on their rationalist thoughts). Socrates was also a rationalist, and he was accused of being an atheist, but that's because he rejected the state polytheism by referring to God in the singular. John Locke, Bishop George Berkeley, David Hume... they were staunch empiricists, and at least Hume was an atheist regarding Christianity; the rest were theists or deists.

Immanuel Kant was the first to formalise the position that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge. His branch of epistemology is called transcendental idealism. This is the unification of rationalism and empiricism: if reasoning goes beyond the realm of all possible experience, it is flawed; and if experience is not processed through reasoning, no coherent thought can emerge. (Kant's position on the God question is hard to pin down: some say he was a deist, others say he was an atheist, yet others say he was an unusual kind of theist. Transcendental idealism was also adopted by pantheistic and panentheistic philosophers such as F.W.J. Schelling and G.W.F. Hegel.)

Many atheists exhibit both rationalism and empiricism. When debating a Christian, for instance, they demand both empirical evidence for their deity and rational re-thinking for the claim that their deity exists. So, are atheists transcendental idealists?

 

[Nautyskin]

Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz... they were staunch rationalists <snip> (in fact, their theism was based on their rationalist thoughts)

The theism of both Descartes and Spinoza is certainly up for debate, but what I really wonder is, how does one determine which came first - the rationale or the belief?

 

[mirandansa]

Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz... they were staunch rationalists <snip> (in fact, their theism was based on their rationalist thoughts)

The theism of both Descartes and Spinoza is certainly up for debate, but what I really wonder is, how does one determine which came first - the rationale or the belief?

In the case of these classical thinkers, probably the belief. They were brought up in a monotheistic culture, and they rationalised their understanding in accordance with that native cultural framework.

It thus seems possible for one's own pre-established belief in the existence of a deity to survive internal rationalist scrutiny. So, i suspect educating modern religious theists or their children in rationalism wouldn't necessarily lead them to atheism (rather, given that Leibniz produced substantial rationalist arguments for theism, it might even further their interest in theology). What atheists mean when they stress rational thinking concerning a deity's existence, is that empirical evidence must be taken into consideration. And that involves empiricism, not only rationalism itself. And in fact it's a combination of both.

As i pointed out, this epistemology represents transcendental idealism. But i guess not many atheists would be fond of such a term. Instead, they may prefer "critical thinking" or even "scepticism".

I'm all for critical thinking, but i don't think it's an epistemological stance more than a cognitive skill. And there is another such important skill: creative thinking. Critical Thinking Web states:

Critical and creative thinking are the two most basic thinking skills. Critical thinking is a matter of thinking clearly and rationally. Creativity consists in coming up with new and relevant ideas. To be a good and effecive thinker, both kinds of thinking skills are needed. Creativity might be divided into two kinds. One is cognitive creativity that is involved in solving problems. The other is aesthetic creativity relating to artistic creation.

I can imagine critical thinking skills leading a person to the rejection of mythical monotheistic belief systems. However, combined with creative thinking, would it necessarily lead a person to become a self-professed "atheist" more than purely a free thinker? I have suggested on other threads that we broaden the definition of "God" so as to include as it should not only polytheistic and monotheistic deities (i.e. an ontological entity) but also pantheistic and panentheistic senses of non-supernatural non-agentive divinity (i.e. an evaluational quality), and i have meant to offer an insight based on creative thinking. I then keep being met by objections from atheists, saying that, if the definition of "God" is so changed, it would make some people both an atheist and a theist. And that's my point. If one thinks both critically/reasonably and creatively/aesthetically, one will acquire good components of atheism and theism, and will be liberated from exclusive identification/labelling that is not a requisite for a free thinker in the first place.

The most important thing to propagate through education is thinking skills. And that does not necessarily entail atheism.