The "atheist" movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of "atheism." Allow me to explain.
Individuals who label themselves an "atheist" can be somewhat simplistically[1] divided into (at least) two groups: (1) those who define "atheism" as the mere lack of belief in God, and (2) those who hold the positive belief that God does not exist. Individuals in group 1 include Antony Flew, George Smith, and Michael Martin. Individuals in group 2 include Theodore Drange, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenberg, and perhaps William Rowe and Michael Tooley.
"Group 1 atheists" could consistently say that "atheism" means the absence of god-belief and hold the positive belief that God does not exist. Michael Martin is an example of an atheist who does precisely this. On the other hand, "Group 1 atheists" could also consistently define "atheism" the way that they do and lack a belief in the non-existence of God. In other words, an individual in "group 1" might call herself an atheist, but not embrace any arguments for the non-existence of God, including the arguments from evil, reasonable nonbelief, physical minds, and so forth.
Group 1 atheists generally recognize members of group 2 as fellow atheists. Group 2 atheists, on the other hand, tend to say that being in group 1 doesn't automatically make someone an "atheist" (in the group 2 sense). On group 2's view, someone in group 1 could be an "atheist" (in the group 2 sense) but they also might not be an "atheist." It depends.
These distinctions matter because group 2 atheists may not feel represented by a group 1 atheist at all. From the perspective of a group 2 atheist, there is a big difference between someone who says, "I believe God does not exist on the basis of good/strong/conclusive evidence for God's nonexistence," and "I lack belief in both the existence and nonexistence of God." More to the point: this is the problem with Antony Flew, Kai Nielsen, and other group 1 atheists who have purported to represent "atheism" in public debates over God's existence. They are portrayed as defenders of "atheism" (in the group 2 sense, which is how the general public defines "atheism") even though they are not "atheists" in the group 2 sense and, most important, even though they do not defend any arguments for God's nonexistence. (This is not surprising to those who specialize in the philosophy of religion, since these individuals never claimed to hold the positive belief that God does not exist.)
Note
[1] For an approach to defining atheism that is both more sophisticated and I think ultimately correct, see Ted Drange's "Atheism, Agnosticism, and Noncognitivism." I have deliberately simplified the issue here in order to make a point.
6 comments:
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?
To you I’m an atheist. To God, I’m the Loyal Opposition.
Woody Allen
--------------
I give blood. I volunteer my organs. I donate to charities. I return my shopping cart. I never needed religion to puppeteer me through life and tell me how to feel about gays, abortion, and capital punishment or how to raise my kid. When people ask me what I am, I say Earthling.
William P.O’Neil, “Playing the God Card,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 10, 2000
------------
THE THREE WORST THINGS ABOUT BEING AN ATHEIST
1) No one to talk to when you come.
2) Having to scream, “Blind chance!” when you stub your toe.
3) Not being able to return all the “damned to hells” you receive from folks who say you are.
Edward. T. Babinski
Speaking of dispiriting, even futile, discussions...
There's a lot to be said on this topic, and it has been. Part of the problem is that this is not a matter of inventing new terms to cover philosophical positions but trying to address slightly differing uses of the same term by various groups.
In terms of a "movement", I think the broader term should be favored as more inclusive. Much the same situation applies to many other groups. e.g. radical feminists within the broader feminist movement, or of course fundagelical Christians within the broader Christian community. In those cases as well the more restrictive element insist on being "truer", and also to a degree match the popular outside perception.
Ed -- very funny!
Jim and Brad -- I could be wrong, but I think common usage favors the "atheism = belief that God does not exist" definition. If that is the case, then insisting that "atheism" be defined in a nonstandard way is an uphill battle. It isn't clear to me what the benefits of that battle are. Etymological purity? Historical consistency? I think the value proposition of fighting that battle is, well, exaggerated. In my opinion, a more prudent use of our limited time and energy would be to use words in accordance with popular usage and find something more important to argue about.
I'm not arguing about it; I've been there and done that, though in my view the broader definition is more prevalent among informed atheists for reasons including Brad's observation about incoherence. This also seems reflected in reasonably informed sources such as wikipedia.
If we're going by common usage, then we'll just have to accept that atheists are those who dogmatically reject the existence of any sort of God, out of orneriness at best, or more likely distaste for moral standards. By whatever definition, modern "atheism" represents the reclaiming of a traditionally pejorative label.
Jim--
Two comments:
(1) You write, "the broader definition is more prevalent among informed atheists." Here you are using the word "atheists" in a statement that (I assume) is intended to function as part of an argument for preferring one definition of atheism over another. Do you see the problem?
(2) You write, "If we're going by common usage, then we'll just have to accept that atheists are those who dogmatically reject the existence of any sort of God, out of orneriness at best, or more likely distaste for moral standards." I agree that common usage probably does go beyond the narrower definition. What that shows, I think, is that there is a good reason for not blindly accepting a definition on the basis of common usage. Perhaps we need a modified procedure where we start with common usage and then strip out the obviously derogatory and ad hominem components.
Jeff(?):
For "atheists" in my statement substitute "those who identify themselves as atheists", where by "informed" I intend to rule out those who have not investigated the issue significantly. Your problem in trying to force a more restrictive meaning is that you're doing so in the face not only of the traditional pejorative meaning on the one hand, but a widely-accepted contemporary philosophical meaning on the other, as witness your citation of Martin, Flew, Smith, etc. Your effort is not only to claim a label for yourself, but to wrest it away from others who are and have been actively using it.
Personally, I am aware enough of the complexities involved that I avoid unqualified use of any label in any case.
Post a Comment