Darwin,Atheism and Religion

[Darcy88]

An atheist who says there is no God is really saying there is no good reason to believe there's a God. Its as simple as that.

[OrphanPip]

Of course they can. You're misunderstanding my position altogether. What I’m objecting to is the idea that people who merely lack a belief in God are atheists. Lack of belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that some caveman, for instance, who has never formed the conception of God is an atheist, seems vacuous to me. The hypothetical caveman lacks a belief about the existence of God. True. But is he an atheist by virtue of that lack? He lacks a belief about the non-existence of God as well. Does that make him a theist? No, he is neither a theist nor an atheist.

That's why there is a long standing tradition of distinguishing between implicit atheism (i.e. atheism that derives from a lack of knowledge about the concept of theism) and explicit atheism (a conscious objection to the concept of theism). Explicit atheism can then be further divided into weak (atheism that derives from a general doubt about the existence of gods) and strong (atheism that asserts the absolute non-existence of deities).

At any rate, it is not how the term is and has been used, for millennia. And none of the atheists here are atheists in the sense that they merely lack belief. For, they’ve all formed the conception of God, however imperfectly, and then rejected it. It isn’t just that atheists lack belief in the proposition “God exists,” for they go on to affirm the proposition’s contrary. The atheists here - correct me if I'm wrong, atheists - all agree with the proposition: "God doesn't exist" or else "Probably, God doesn't exist." And, it seems to me, that is what makes them atheists. And that is a metaphysical truth-claim. Atheists, like theists, claim to know something about the world, about reality.

That simply isn't true, these distinctions and definitions have existed since the 18th century. Dictionaries are a bad source for nuanced definitions that reflect complex philosophical discourses. The dictionary provides the dominant definition, which has derived from the popular (theistic biased) definition, and ignores the nuances of the identity category (as any identity category is incredibly complicated when we chip away at the stereotype). An atheist does not need to make a truth claim about the universe, an atheist does not need to say there is no God to say they do not believe in the existence of gods. Saying, "I think it unlikely that God exists" is different than saying, "God does not exist." In fact, the earliest use of atheist, from Greek sources, was used merely to refer to the irreligious, which arises from the fact that Athenian society did not distinguish between religion (as social institution) and theism.

Remember, there are many different sorts of definition. Standard dictionaries usually give nominal definitions, which are of little use to us here. We need an essential definition. Here are some more profitable definitions of “atheism,” none of which are consistent with the idea that atheism is merely a lack of belief. The first calls it a “belief,” the second a “position that affirms,” and the third a “doctrine.”

Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God.”

Oxford Companion to Philosophy: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.”

The definitions are not nuanced, why do we need an essential definition of something, when that something has multifaceted meanings? Let's not further derail this into a debate about semiotics.

Var's definition was neither unconventional or novel, it is a very common part of the dialogue about atheism, and has been for over 200 years. To make claims about the traditional meaning, when that meaning has not been exclusive for 200 years, is simply a pointless distraction.

[cafolini]

Pardon me, but this is rubbish. Atheists don't have to take any leaps of faith to say that there is no god in this reality. If a god exists anywhere at all, it is, as of now, not known to us. I don't have a God. I don't have theism. If I get some, I'll let you know.

Now we are going to have to wait for Varenne. How long will it take?

[BienvenuJDC]

Explicit atheism can then be further divided into weak (atheism that derives from a general doubt about the existence of gods) and strong (atheism that asserts the absolute non-existence of deities).



Dictionaries are a bad source for nuanced definitions that reflect complex philosophical discourses.


The definitions are not nuanced, why do we need an essential definition of something, when that something has multifaceted meanings? Let's not further derail this into a debate about semiotics.

Remember, there are many different sorts of definition. Standard dictionaries usually give nominal definitions, which are of little use to us here. We need an essential definition. Here are some more profitable definitions of “atheism,” none of which are consistent with the idea that atheism is merely a lack of belief. The first calls it a “belief,” the second a “position that affirms,” and the third a “doctrine.”

Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”

Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God.”

Oxford Companion to Philosophy: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.”

I think that Climacus makes a valid point. However, we don't have to take "nuanced" definitions to determine this to be the case. We can merely look at how each of the atheists here demand that believing in God is preposterous. They refer to it as "fantasy" and they are demeaning to one who has such a belief. I think that the definitions here are well founded in the threads on this site.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, well, well. This is such a shock! I provide links supporting the suggestion that those stones are false, and what does Bien do? IGNORES IT! Too funny.

[Varenne Rodin]

Now we are going to have to wait for Varenne. How long will it take?

You're right, Cafolini. I am going to continue to voice opposition to people who seek to convert others to a life of servitude for something unseen. A life where people attempt to behave based on a punishment/reward system like dogs. Christians confuse people into thinking their actions please or anger their master. It's not freedom, so should I lie down and shut up like an obedient dog to avoid hindering their freedom to enslave?

It's good to have voices opposing bullies who call themselves servants to their "Lord" and want to make you one, too; people who call atheists insulting for saying it's a bully system.

I don't hear of atheists trying to make people into slaves.

Well, well, well. This is such a shock! I provide links supporting the suggestion that those stones are false, and what does Bien do? IGNORES IT! Too funny.

Sometimes nothing gets through. The lie will be clinged to at all costs.

[Alexander III]

I don't hear of atheists trying to make people into slaves.

I couldn't stop myself...

[Climacus]

An atheist does not need to make a truth claim about the universe, an atheist does not need to say there is no God to say they do not believe in the existence of gods. Saying, "I think it unlikely that God exists" is different than saying, "God does not exist."

This is very near to what I said. (What I said was: "The atheists here . . . all agree with the proposition: 'God doesn't exist' or else 'Probably, God doesn't exist.'") However, both are truth-claims.

Edit: By the way, are you suggesting that "I think it unlikely that God exists" isn't a truth-claim? Because it is a truth-claim. It is the truth-claim "It's unlikely that God exists." Prefacing it with "I think" or "I say" doesn't make it less of a truth-claim. If by "I think" you mean something like "well, ya know, it's possible" then the truth-claim reads "it's possible that it's unlikely that God exists." And that's pretty innocuous and inconsequential. Theists can affirm that too.

The definitions are not nuanced, why do we need an essential definition of something, when that something has multifaceted meanings?

An essential definition - that which gives both genus and specific difference - is the best sort of definition to have when discussing or arguing about something. For it tells just what it is we're talking about, and how it is different than everything else. (Dictionaries often give merely nominal definitions.) If something has many meanings, we need to decide which meaning we're going with for discussion's sake, lest fallacies of equivocation run rampant, as they have in this thread.

[cafolini]

You're right, Cafolini. I am going to continue to voice opposition to people who seek to convert others to a life of servitude for something unseen. A life where people attempt to behave based on a punishment/reward system like dogs. Christians confuse people into thinking their actions please or anger their master. It's not freedom, so should I lie down and shut up like an obedient dog to avoid hindering their freedom to enslave?

It's good to have voices opposing bullies who call themselves servants to their "Lord" and want to make you one, too; people who call atheists insulting for saying it's a bully system.

I don't hear of atheists trying to make people into slaves.



Sometimes nothing gets through. The lie will be clinged to at all costs.

I'm not going to argue your good points. I will only show your presuppositions. I probably wouldn't even argue that.
The point is that you are generalizing about religion. We have seen plenty of civilizations rise in the hands of so-called atheists which were very tyranical and criminal. Did you know for example that around 1979, long before the fall of Russian communism, Sadam Hussein was a staunch Stalinist and an atheist, just to give a minor example of what was repeatedly the case in the USSR. What about Poland.
It is not easy to cope with life, which makes a lot of people extremely hypocritical. But I have known a lot of good Christians that did a lot of good to society, regardless of the BS they launched to the four winds, God, and the sea in their small backyard.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm not going to argue your good points. I will only show your presuppositions. I probably wouldn't even argue that.
The point is that you are generalizing about religion. We have seen plenty of civilizations rise in the hands of so-called atheists which were very tyranical and criminal. Did you know for example that around 1979, long before the fall of Russian communism, Sadam Hussein was a staunch Stalinist and an atheist, just to give a minor example of what was repeatedly the case in the USSR. What about Poland.
It is not easy to cope with life, which makes a lot of people extremely hypocritical. But I have known a lot of good Christians that did a lot of good to society, regardless of the BS they launched to the four winds, God, and the sea in their small backyard.

I didn't mean to suggest that no atheist has ever inflicted cruelties. My point was that atheism doesn't have a group agenda to amass servants. A dictator tells someone to serve him. Tyrants are tyrants. Atheism doesn't make people into tyrants. Christianity certainly seeks to convert people to service positions to an "all powerful god."

All things said, I think we agree, Cafolini. Thank you for your thoughtful input.

[Varenne Rodin]

Also, I'm not entirely lumping religions together. When there is something specific to Christians I try to remember to separate that from theism in my posts. If I think the matter is particular to Christianity in the United States, I try to throw in something like "Christians in my country" because I know Christians aren't the same worldwide. I do think that it's a master/slave relationship worldwide, however, and I don't think it has to be.

I think theism in general is at least somewhat reflective of the arrogance of man insofar as he thinks he found the answers, and those answers are best for the world.

I could be wrong, but Buddhism has always seemed the least offensive.

[OrphanPip]

This is very near to what I said. (What I said was: "The atheists here . . . all agree with the proposition: 'God doesn't exist' or else 'Probably, God doesn't exist.'") However, both are truth-claims.

One is a truth claim about their beliefs though, not about the universe. If they said simply "I think it probable a deity exists, but I don't believe in it" you can see the distinction more clearly. As then their claim about the existence of god in the universe would be in line with theistic thinking, but then their personal identification is atheist.

We can then also incorporate theological noncognitivist approaches, which would argue that the question of "God" is unintelligible, so it is impossible to make a statement of belief or nonbelief about God, and these people can then often self-identify as atheist.

Your conception of atheism is too narrow, it assumes that atheism must make claims about the existence of God, rather than be merely a claim about a persons personal inclinations. Note that what I said is that atheism does not need to make truth claims about the universe.

An essential definition - that which gives both genus and specific difference - is the best sort of definition to have when discussing or arguing about something. For it tells just what it is we're talking about, and how it is different than everything else. (Dictionaries often give merely nominal definitions.) If something has many meanings, we need to decide which meaning we're going with for discussion's sake, lest fallacies of equivocation run rampant, as they have in this thread.

Not when such essentializing of a term requires the exclusion of meaningful distinctions and schools of thought. You either end up with a reductionist definition that is useless or into a pointless debate about semantics. Thus, why it is more expedient, and more useful, to incorporate more nuanced distinctions, such as implicit or explicit atheism.

[Climacus]

Just edited my above post, OrphanPip, before seeing yours. I don't know if you saw the edited version.

[Climacus]

One is a truth claim about their beliefs though, not about the universe. If they said simply "I think it probable a deity exists, but I don't believe in it" you can see the distinction more clearly. As then their claim about the existence of god in the universe would be in line with theistic thinking, but then their personal identification is atheist.

Right. I'm with you here, more or less. But they're still truth-claims. That was my point. Take "I think it probable a deity exists, but I don't believe in it." There are two propositions here. (1) "It's probable that a deity exists." And (2) "I don't believe in a deity." Again, both are truth-claims. Both claim to know something about the world.

Your conception of atheism is too narrow, it assumes that atheism must make claims about the existence of God, rather than be merely a claim about a persons personal inclinations. Note that what I said is that atheism does not need to make truth claims about the universe.

A truth-claim about a personal inclination is a truth-claim about the universe. "X has the personal inclination Y" is a proposition, thus it is either true or false. And it tells you something about the universe.

[Climacus]

Not when such essentializing of a term requires the exclusion of meaningful distinctions and schools of thought. You either end up with a reductionist definition that is useless or into a pointless debate about semantics. Thus, why it is more expedient, and more useful, to incorporate more nuanced distinctions, such as implicit or explicit atheism.

No, an essential definition is always the best sort of definition for arguing and philosophising and discussing. What you're decrying would be a bad, incorrect essential definition. (Or else it would be a good, correct essential definition that is being misapplied.) If something has multiple meanings, then it will need multiple definitions. And, again, in each case, essential definitions would be best. The problem here is not just reductionism and semantic quibbling, it's equivocation.