What is Atheism?

[Sparhafoc]

Let's try this another way.

Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

I do not possess that belief.

Does the fact that I state I do not possess a belief in the existence of a god or gods entail a burden of proof?

If you wish to answer 'yes' - please also detail exactly what form of proof you would imagine this entails.

As far as I am concerned, the only way I could come to have a burden of proof regarding this position is if I were to make a negative claim: e.g.

A god or gods do not exist.

That would require me to defend that statement.

 

[FelixChaser]

I am sorry, but I really don't follow or even understand what you're trying to argue.

Talking about the words 'acellular', 'acephalic' and 'anoxic' as they're used in the modern English language as a comparison for how the a- prefix is used wouldn't make sense if we were talking about etymology, but it does make sense when we're looking at what the prefix a- means in the modern English language.

Of course the only thing they have in common is the a- prefix - that's exactly the point I was making and it's clearly written in my post that these further exemplify the meaning of the a- prefix in modern English to provide comparative examples for how we should read the a- prefix in the word 'atheism'.




Bolded to highlight.

I really don't see how that is not an etymological argument. The only way it even makes sense to compare across words in the way you have is to point to the shared etymology of the a-.

Let's try this another way.

Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

I do not possess that belief.

Does the fact that I state I do not possess a belief in the existence of a god or gods entail a burden of proof?

If you wish to answer 'yes' - please also detail exactly what form of proof you would imagine this entails.

As far as I am concerned, the only way I could come to have a burden of proof regarding this position is if I were to make a negative claim: e.g.

A god or gods do not exist.

That would require me to defend that statement.

Agnostics and innocents do not possess that belief either, and yet I would not classify them as atheists.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I really don't see how that is not an etymological argument. The only way it even makes sense to compare across words in the way you have is to point to the shared etymology of the a-.

As I mentioned before: my sense is that you're employing an entirely idiosyncratic understanding of the term 'etymology' because the way you're using it is wholly unintelligible to me.

 

[Sparhafoc]

etymological argument - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

etymological

argument

(plural etymological arguments)

1. (philosophy, linguistics) Explanation and analysis—often considered controversial—of one or more concepts or linguistic terms by means of an exposition of their linguistic origins.

--- explanation of a term by means of an exposition of its linguistic origins ---

Can you directly quote, in that post you originally replied to, where I explained or analyzed the term 'atheism' through an exposition of the word's linguistic origins?

Rather, the point I made was semantic / grammatical.

 

[FelixChaser]

etymological argument - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/etymological#English

--- explanation of a term by means of an exposition of its linguistic origins ---

Can you directly quote, in that post you originally replied to, where I explained or analyzed the term 'atheism' through an exposition of the word's linguistic origins?

Right here:

I'd add a semantic note - which I think is entirely justified considering that this is exactly what these arguments reside on - that the prefix a- is a privative, denoting 'without' , absent' or 'not'; specifically it's the alpha privative:

Alpha privative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sparhafoc]

Agnostics and innocents do not possess that belief either, and yet I would not classify them as atheists.

Treating the term 'agnostic' as if it is exclusive with 'atheism' is problematic to me. Gnosticism concerns knowledge and isn't expressly related to the question of deities.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'innocents' - perhaps infants lacking language? I also wouldn't call them 'atheists' or 'theists' or anything else with an -ist because they do not belong yet to the set of things (i.e. conscious, cognizant language-users) which can possess beliefs or hold cognitive positions on philosophical or abstract concepts. Similarly, I wouldn't term a person raised wholly in the absence of any concept of deities to be 'atheist' because, while they don't possess the belief in theism, it's not because they do not accept the claim, but because they are unaware of that idea.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Right here:

There is nothing there which contains any sense of linguistic origins. It's a grammatical point concerning the way prefixes work in the English language.

Can you quote specifically which words I use that make you think I am making an etymological point?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Etymology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Etymology

(/ˌɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/)[1] is the study of the history of words.[1] By extension, the phrase "the etymology of [a word]" means the origin of a particular word.

The history of words.
The origin of a particular word.

Neither of these are addressed at all in my post.

Rather, I am looking at...

Prefix - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A prefix is an affix which is placed before the stem of a word.[1] Adding it to the beginning of one word changes it into another word. For example, when the prefix un- is added to the word happy, it creates the word unhappy.

Were the above quote concerned with etymology, it would point out that the English word 'happy' is derived through Anglo-Saxon from the Old Norse word 'happ' meaning luck, fortune or chance. That would be an etymological point.

 

[FelixChaser]

Treating the term 'agnostic' as if it is exclusive with 'atheism' is problematic to me. Gnosticism concerns knowledge and isn't expressly related to the question of deities.

In the context of a conversation regarding the existence of God, "agnosticism" is often used to denote a position that is exclusive, in the sense that it is neither atheist nor theist. The Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy (4th ed.), for example, defines an agnostic as one who "neither believes nor disbelieves in God" (p. 11). Oppy gives the same definition, adding that it involves suspending judgment on the matter. Although some now use "agnostic" as a modifier for "atheist" (e.g., "agnostic atheist"), I don't think this makes much sense. It is likely to cause confusion for one, given that there are agnostics who use the label to distinguish themselves from both theists and atheists. And it doesn't seem to add much value when the question is "What do you believe?," not "How certain are you?"

I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'innocents' - perhaps infants lacking language? I also wouldn't call them 'atheists' or 'theists' or anything else with an -ist because they do not belong yet to the set of things (i.e. conscious, cognizant language-users) which can possess beliefs or hold cognitive positions on philosophical or abstract concepts. Similarly, I wouldn't term a person raised wholly in the absence of any concept of deities to be 'atheist' because, while they don't possess the belief in theism, it's not because they do not accept the claim, but because they are unaware of that idea.

Then it seems that merely not possessing a belief is not, on its own, sufficient? In which case I think we'd need a better definition than one that emphasises mere lack or absence as the defining characteristic.

Etymology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The history of words.
The origin of a particular word.

Neither of these are addressed at all in my post.

Rather, I am looking at...

Prefix - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Were the above quote concerned with etymology, it would point out that the English word 'happy' is derived through Anglo-Saxon from the Old Norse word 'happ' meaning luck, fortune or chance. That would be an etymological point.

You pointed to the prefix a-, noting that it is a Greek-derived term used to express negation or absence, with examples of how that term has been inherited and used in our language to reflect different instances of negation or absence. That seems fairly etymological to me.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You pointed to the prefix a-, noting that it is a Greek-derived term used to express negation or absence, with examples of how that term has been inherited and used in our language to reflect different instances of negation or absence. That seems fairly etymological to me.

This is factually untrue, which is exactly why I asked you to cite my words. You didn't cite my words saying anything like the above.

Nothing I wrote contained anything about 'Greek-derived term'. I gave no examples at all about that being 'inherited' into our language.

So you are mischaracterizing what I wrote, and you've argued with me now half a dozen times trying to tell me what my argument is even though I wrote no such thing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

In the context of a conversation regarding the existence of God, "agnosticism" is often used to denote a position that is exclusive, in the sense that it is neither atheist nor theist.

Well, I disagree with that. One can be theistic and agnostic, or atheistic and agnostic, theistic and gnostic or atheistic and gnostic.

The Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy (4th ed.), for example, defines an agnostic as one who "neither believes nor disbelieves in God" (p. 11).

Ok, so let's go and take a look at your citation:

Agnosticism - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.rep.routledge.com

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational.

So I fear I have to say that I think you've not accurately rendered what the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy actually says.

Your chosen excerpt is quite clearly specified as "in the popular sense" - but it is then followed with a succeeding sentence which defines the 'strict sense' regarding the inability of human reason being capable of providing rational grounds to justify belief that God exists or that God does not exist, and then continues to expand on that for the remainder of the paragraph.

Thus one could believe in the existence of God(s), yet accept that there is no means of providing rational grounds to justify that belief to others, just as one can deny the existence of God(s) while simultaneously accepting that there is no rational grounds to validate that belief.

To give examples not including theism to hopefully illuminate:

I believe there is intelligent life on other planets. I accept I have no means of validating that belief - I cannot provide justification of the belief.
I believe there are no teapots orbiting Mars. I accept I cannot prove a negative, so in turn I cannot provide justification of that belief.

Ergo, agnosticism & atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive; I can believe in God without also holding that I can show my belief to be justified (i.e. fideism). I can believe in God and believe that I can provide justification for my belief, in which case I'd be a gnostic theist - I don't just believe in the god, I also believe there is knowledge available to justify believing in that god.

Oppy gives the same definition, adding that it involves suspending judgment on the matter. Although some now use "agnostic" as a modifier for "atheist" (e.g., "agnostic atheist"), I don't think this makes much sense. It is likely to cause confusion for one, given that there are agnostics who use the label to distinguish themselves from both theists and atheists. And it doesn't seem to add much value when the question is "What do you believe?," not "How certain are you?"

I'm afraid that you've somewhat revised history here as the gentleman that coined the term 'agnosticism' in the 19th Century - Thomas Henry Huxley - wrote: "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe", so agnosticism and atheism were never mutually exclusive from a philosophical or logical standpoint even if some people misunderstood the concept of agnosticism to mean 'undecided' or some other similar in-between idea. As a side point, Huxley's term was not intended to be restricted to discussion about divine entities, but was rather a heuristic of scientific reasoning.

Then it seems that merely not possessing a belief is not, on its own, sufficient?

No, that would be the consequence of the fallacious red herring you introduced and I rejected. Rocks do not possess a belief in divine entities, but that doesn't make them atheist and suggesting so would be a category error. That doesn't indicate there's a problem with the proposition that atheism is the lack of belief in divine entities because we aren't trying to include things in our claim which cannot possess beliefs.

In which case I think we'd need a better definition than one that emphasises mere lack or absence as the defining characteristic.

I couldn't disagree more - the definition is perfectly adequate and clear, red herrings notwithstanding.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Look up:
Flammable
Inflammable
What does the, 'In' mean?

​

I'm not sure I understand your question.

What is so hard to understand? I am merely asking if we can answer the question beyond just explaining what we believe to be the answer. You said you were interested in responses to that question, but I am wondering if that question is answerable beyond just stating what we believe the answer to be.

In attempting to answer the metaphysical question, is one not stating what they believe the answer to be?

Yes, and that seems to be AronRa's point. But stating what one believes is not the same as answer the question. Again, you said that you were interested in the metaphysical question, and I am merely wondering if that question can be answered beyond stating one's belief.

 

[FelixChaser]

This is factually untrue, which is exactly why I asked you to cite my words. You didn't cite my words saying anything like the above.

Nothing I wrote contained anything about 'Greek-derived term'. I gave no examples at all about that being 'inherited' into our language.

So you are mischaracterizing what I wrote, and you've argued with me now half a dozen times trying to tell me what my argument is even though I wrote no such thing.

The very link you provided in your post explaining a- indicated that it was a Greek-derived term and I don't see how saying that your were talking about words that inherited that prefix in our language is in any way a mischaracterisation—you were.

So I fear I have to say that I think you've not accurately rendered what the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy actually says.

Your chosen excerpt is quite clearly specified as "in the popular sense" - but it is then followed with a succeeding sentence which defines the 'strict sense' regarding the inability of human reason being capable of providing rational grounds to justify belief that God exists or that God does not exist, and then continues to expand on that for the remainder of the paragraph.

Yes, my chosen excerpt is specific to the popular sense; I thought that was clear. It is also worth looking at the entry on atheism.

Ergo, agnosticism & atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive; I can believe in God without also holding that I can show my belief to be justified (i.e. fideism). I can believe in God and believe that I can provide justification for my belief, in which case I'd be a gnostic theist - I don't just believe in the god, I also believe there is knowledge available to justify believing in that god.

This seems somewhat circular to me, particularly the last sentence. Knowledge is a subset of belief, so it seems odd to talk of "knowledge available to justify belief." Ignoring Gettier cases, if we take knowledge to be justified true belief, the sentence reads as "I also believe there is justified true belief available to justify believing." Maybe it's just a phrasing issue though and if you rephrased it I'd understand what you mean better.

I'm afraid that you've somewhat revised history here as the gentleman that coined the term 'agnosticism' in the 19th Century - Thomas Henry Huxley - wrote: "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe", so agnosticism and atheism were never mutually exclusive from a philosophical or logical standpoint even if some people misunderstood the concept of agnosticism to mean 'undecided' or some other similar in-between idea. As a side point, Huxley's term was not intended to be restricted to discussion about divine entities, but was rather a heuristic of scientific reasoning.

I'm not sure why what Huxley said should really matter? Just as etymology does not dictate use, the person who coins a term doesn't get exclusive say over its usage. The latter case would even seem to be a genetic fallacy.

No, that would be the consequence of the fallacious red herring you introduced and I rejected. Rocks do not possess a belief in divine entities, but that doesn't make them atheist and suggesting so would be a category error. That doesn't indicate there's a problem with the proposition that atheism is the lack of belief in divine entities because we aren't trying to include things in our claim which cannot possess beliefs.

Why would they not be "atheists," per the definition given? I don't think it's a "category error"; I think it's a flaw in the definition and it seems like special pleading to say "It means thus..." and then to add, "But not in such and such cases." Why not in such cases? Nothing in the definition itself precludes it.

 

[FelixChaser]

​

What is so hard to understand? I am merely asking if we can answer the question beyond just explaining what we believe to be the answer. You said you were interested in responses to that question, but I am wondering if that question is answerable beyond just stating what we believe the answer to be.



Yes, and that seems to be AronRa's point. But stating what one believes is not the same as answer the question. Again, you said that you were interested in the metaphysical question, and I am merely wondering if that question can be answered beyond stating one's belief.

Every answer is inevitably going to involve stating one's belief or disbelief in the answer. So, in a certain sense, no, you can't get to an answer without having beliefs about the answer. The issue then is not whether one has beliefs (that's a given), but whether they are justified, reasonable, and true.

 

[*SD*]

Why would they not be "atheists," per the definition given? I don't think it's a "category error"; I think it's a flaw in the definition and it seems like special pleading to say "It means thus..." and then to add, "But not in such and such cases." Why not in such cases? Nothing in the definition itself precludes it.

This is incredibly trivial. If all you mean is that rocks are atheists in virtue of them not believing in any God's - sure, you're correct. Who cares? This obviously isn't what we're referring to when we're discussing 'atheism' - rocks, as has been pointed out and I'm sure you accept, don't have the capacity or potential to have beliefs in anything. You already stated that knowledge is a subset of belief, which I agree with wholeheartedly, so since rocks do not possess the capability for knowledge, they can't possibly have beliefs.

This is just the old and tired "well my door is an atheist then" thing. Yeah, if all you mean is that your door doesn't believe in God. It ties back to one of my previous posts in this thread that this is just semantic silliness. You surely know exactly what we're talking about here, it would be nice if you wouldn't pretend that you don't. Let's all try to have a meaningful discussion and not be deliberately obtuse.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Every answer is inevitably going to involve stating one's belief or disbelief in the answer. So, in a certain sense, no, you can't get to an answer without having beliefs about the answer. The issue then is not whether one has beliefs (that's a given), but whether they are justified, reasonable, and true.

You are still sidestepping the question, and I do not understand why. Again, can we answer the question beyond just explaining what we believe to be the answer? Is there a way to determine the existence of a deity(s)? You said you cared about this question, so I would think it should be straight forward for you to answer it.

 

[FelixChaser]

You are still sidestepping the question, and I do not understand why. Again, can we answer the question beyond just explaining what we believe to be the answer? Is there a way to determine the existence of a deity(s)? You said you cared about this question, so I would think it should be straight forward for you to answer it.

I did answer it. You don't get to an answer—any answer—without having beliefs about the answer. This is an incredibly trivial point—of course determining the answer will require explaining what one believes the answer to be, in addition to providing justification.

This is incredibly trivial. If all you mean is that rocks are atheists in virtue of them not believing in any God's - sure, you're correct. Who cares? This obviously isn't what we're referring to when we're discussing 'atheism' - rocks, as has been pointed out and I'm sure you accept, don't have the capacity or potential to have beliefs in anything. You already stated that knowledge is a subset of belief, which I agree with wholeheartedly, so since rocks do not possess the capability for knowledge, they can't possibly have beliefs.

But they can lack beliefs, as indeed they do.

This is just the old and tired "well my door is an atheist then" thing. Yeah, if all you mean is that your door doesn't believe in God. It ties back to one of my previous posts in this thread that this is just semantic silliness. You surely know exactly what we're talking about here, it would be nice if you wouldn't pretend that you don't. Let's all try to have a meaningful discussion and not be deliberately obtuse.

I know what you mean despite the definition, not because of it. Pointing out that the definition ends up being overly inclusive—despite you not meaning it to be so inclusive—is not to be obtuse, but to suggest that the definition doesn't achieve what you mean it to, and therefore needs revision.

 

[*SD*]

I know what you mean despite the definition, not because of it. Pointing out that the definition ends up being overly inclusive—despite you not meaning it to be so inclusive—is not to be obtuse, but to suggest that the definition doesn't achieve what you mean it to, and therefore needs revision.

So, having read the OP by AronRa, I'm wondering what your issue really is here. And also wondering why you didn't respond to my earlier post about just laying down the position and then using any word you want for it? Is it just the word atheism that bothers you? Which word would you prefer to use for someone who neither believes in the existence of, nor claims to have knowledge of the existence of anything which could reasonably be referred to as a God? Why don't we just call this flibbbidy-bibbidy-boo-ism? Would that be better? We're still going to discuss the exact same topic, only you'll be using a different word.

 

[*SD*]

But they can lack beliefs, as indeed they do.

They don't lack something they aren't capable of possessing in the first place. It's like saying rivers lack penises. Technically true, but so trivial it barely warrants a response, and I'm reasonably confident you know how silly this is.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I did answer it. You don't get to an answer—any answer—without having beliefs about the answer. This is an incredibly trivial point—of course determining the answer will require explaining what one believes the answer to be, in addition to providing justification.

I think I see my mistake and I am sorry for being unclear. I am asking how we would go about determining there is a god(s), this is a separate question of whether or not someone believes in it. I can demonstrate that evolution is true regardless of whether or not the person I am talking to believes it or not. Is there a way to do the same for a deity(s)?