Inquiring minds (as yet, unnamed…) want to know. But, as I note in the last post, I dislike labels. It’s too easy to fall into the convenience trap…convenient for me to avoid the hard work of self-discovery, and convenient for others to pigeonhole me, to categorize me to their own satisfaction.
People love to fall back on labels, on dictionary definitions and etymologies…and, too often but far less evident, on their own projections of what they want a label to mean. Words and language, like your own process of self-discovery, evolve. Words and their meaning have done so since humankind’s first utterance. And on today’s web, there are a dozen (if not a hundred) experts ready to tell you what a word (or a label) means.
But, for the sake of this discussion (and for inquiring minds…), if you define an atheist as someone who somehow personifies that which we cannot know, then I guess maybe I am one, because I don’t. But I reserve the right to change my mind…
If you read the philosophical papers, books and websites authored by atheists you will find that the word is taken to mean exactly what it says: “a” means “without” and “theism” means belief in a personal God of the sort that figures in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One may be without theistic belief for any number of reasons, but the philosophically important ones are of two kinds: (1) One has examined arguments that purport to demonstrate God’s existence and finds them to be invalid; (2) One has examined arguments that purport to demonstrate God’s non-existence and finds them valid. Most sophisticated atheisms combine aspects of both positions.
There is another position that derives from the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance, an acute awareness of the mental discomfort that ensues from the juxtaposition of incompatible views, views perhaps broad enough to be world-encompassing or even cosmos-encompassing. Those possessed of even modest scientific literacy may feel—and I must emphasize the word “feel”— that theism is a grotesque anachronism in the modern world. The word that best captures the significance of the juxtaposition is “incommensurable”—not capable of being measured together, alongside each other. What one feels upon reflection is a painful lack of proportionality between the two views. Of course, one must be capable of feeling this lack of proportion. Most people dwell in such a benighted condition that they never see the disproportion. A rejoinder like this one would be quite unintelligible to them.
Michael
Michael, see my note to Larry below, and my next post.
That’s not the way the word was created, or how most people still use it, outside the a-theist bubble. Even the majority of non-theists don’t self-identify as a-theist.
The root word is “atheos” (no/not/without god) + an “ist” (someone who believes) suffix attached = someone who believes “no god(s)”. That word was created almost a full century before theos + ist = someone who believes “god(s)”. There was no word to attach an “a” prefix to.
Those were still the common usage definitions when Huxley came along and created a label, and philosophy, for the no belief position, that was not compatible with either of those belief positions. His philosophy amounted to believing in the scientific method, or the justification process leading to knowledge, and is a form of demarcation. No objective/testable evidence = a subjective/unfalsifiable claim. Results: inconclusive. No belief, as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim.
“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. 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.” ~ Thomas Huxley, 1884
Those three words covered belief, positive disbelief, and no belief, and were still common usage 100 years later.
“In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels ‘positive atheist’ for the former and ‘negative atheist’ for the latter.
The introduction of this new interpretation of the word ‘atheism’ may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. ‘Whyever’, it could be asked, ‘don’t you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?’” ~ Antony Flew, 1984
So-called a-theists have been hijacking agnosticism’s no belief position, and re-branding it weak, or negative, a-theism. While calling the old athe-ism, strong, or positive a-theism.
A-theism is not a philosophy. It’s mostly a meaningless word, which covers absolutely everything that is not theism. Nose picking is a-theism. Likewise a-theist is absolutely everything that’s not a theist. That booger is a-theist.
Why so many of you talk about it as if it’s a philosophy, when it is, literally, not a philosophy/belief system/doctrine, I have a clue.
My advice would be to figure out which label describes what you are best, and use that. Forget about labelling yourself what you aren’t. Omnivore or herbivore are better descriptives than a-carnivore.
Morning, Jason, and thanks for your comment. Even before reading it, I made a quick detour to your own site. It gave me some perspective, and also taught me a couple things, so thanks. I don’t know if Michael will reply (or how), but I’d like say a couple things.
First, some useful background here: I created The Sentient Traveler simply to muse on the human condition and our individual journeys. Fundamental to my own work has been pursuit of self-understanding and self-acceptance. Obviously, consideration of the existential, the religious, and the secular (and their intersections) are all part of this.
What surprised me was how quickly people want to label me (and others), according to questions or observations I might bring up. I suppose it’s just how humans make sense of the world, but it creates so many problems. For one thing, labels often mean vastly different things to different people, whether it’s a label someone claims or one s/he applies to someone else. For another, language and the meaning of words (as opposed to their etymologies) are dynamic and evolving. Not only can labels miscommunicate to others who we are, they can make us individually too comfortable to explore ourselves further.
I’m not saying I have an answer, I don’t. Organizing into convenient categories is just too natural to us, and too convenient. Unfortunately, it allows us to escape the difficult work of true communication. Personally, I think the only useful way to discuss atheism vs agnosticism is in the context of belief vs faith vs knowledge. This would especially be true when considering Christianity, so much of which is tied up in faith (“Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.” Mark 9:24?)
A final note: With respect to your own site, two things come to mind after my quick review of it: First, I’m really agnostic, as is evident from an earlier post I made. So thanks for that. Secondly, though, I suggest it’s risky to become too dogmatic about the origins of words when considering their current meanings. As I noted, language is dynamic. The understood meaning of words is often contextual and cultural. Ultimately, a word should mean whatever two people agree it means for the sake of a particular discussion. Like shared assumptions, shared definitions are critical to useful discourse.
Thanks again for contributing.
A reply from the so-called “atheist bubble,” American Atheists online:
“What Is Atheism?
No one asks this question enough.
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as “wickedness,” “sinfulness,” and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, “If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position.”
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.”
Atheism may not be a religion or set of beliefs, but it is a widely discussed philosophical position comprising a world view with numerous implications for what one does believe about ever so many other issues. What is the existential import of theism? What is the existential import of atheism? Humans are highly evolved primates, forced to adapt to conditions on Earth, and answers to these questions matter to them profoundly in their perception of the world, the interpretation of events and the conduct of their lives, That is precisely why there are any number of authors who address the issue of life without God. Atheism is a starting point for the comprehensive ordering of both internal and external experience, and it will inevitably generate an accompanying set of beliefs among those who live out its meaning. The best way to think of theism is as an adaptation by one of Life’s most grotesque anomalies, the human primate, with atheism as the renunciation of that adaptation.
So the dialog has begun! Good for you! As you know an atheist is just someone who does not believe in god(s). It’s one answer to one question. But that leaves the rest of the Natural (and potentially Supernatural) world as fair game. For instance, Buddhists don’t believe in gods (Buddha himself said he was not a god), but they still have beliefs in reincarnation, karma, etc.
But at least with this post you are starting a dialog that you’re friends and family members may interact with you on the subject. It is vitally important that you have this conversation if they truly value your relationship. Deciding not to talk about it can build a wall between you and them that will forever keep you at an emotional distance from one another.
Once they understand that, they may even find that you’re closer to each other than you have been in very many years; years that you have not talked about the unacknowledged and widening gap between you. The gap of religious belief.
Good luck Bob, and welcome to Freethought! :)
My original post was simply about the utility of labels, and my second about my resistance to being labeled an atheist (or anything else). In your book (and in our discussions) you seem to say we should get off the fence one way or another: Either we’re an atheist or not…and you’re clear about which way you think we should fall. It seems to me both you and Michael (above comment) lean more or less on some kind of dichotomy.
In theory, it should maybe be that simple. But in practice, it’s not, if only because people won’t leave labels alone. By way of explanation, I reference my next post.
Stand by, guys. I have to think about this.
The bulk of my last post on atheism is from an atheist website. The final paragraph is mine. I regard religious belief as an adaptation that simply does not work for an increasing number of people. From this perspective, God’s existence is less important than what motivates believers’ need for God to exist. What term is appropriate for those lacking such motivation?