Why?

[Jac3510]

I'm not sure how the knowledge/belief discussion affects what anyone has said about the definition of atheism, Proin. Gettier's problems acknowledged, if we define knowledge as a "justified, true belief," then there is no issue.

Put simply, I belief is only knowledge if the thing known is real. I can believe the moon is made of cheese. You can't say I "know" it, though, because it is simply not true that the moon is made of cheese.

The question you seem to bring up is whether or not our belief in God's existence is a matter of knowledge or belief. Now, that's a perfectly acceptable question that we can discuss, but it has no bearing on my remarks, because the various -theism positions are defined in terms of belief, not knowledge:

atheism - the belief that no god exists
theism - the belief that god exists
monotheism - the belief that one god exists
polytheism - the belief that many gods exist
pantheism - the belief that everything is god.

So whether or not atheism KNOWS that God doesn't exist, it believes as much (as do the other positions with their respective asssertions). So the question of knowledge doesn't come up yet. All this stands in direct refutation to Wayne's argument that atheism is a lack of belief. It is not. It is a positive assertion--a belief--that God does not exist. The lack of belief is agnosticism, which comes in various shades. There is hard agnosticism which says knowledge is not possible (which I think is self-refuting), and then there is the more common, soft agnosticism which equates "knowledge" with belief and negates the claim to belief. That is what he was talking about.

Bottom line: atheism is not a lack of belief in God. That is agnosticism. For all modern atheists arguments, they are simply wrong on this by the definition of the word. If you don't have a belief one way or the other, you are a soft-agnostic, not an atheist.

[Proinsias]

The question you seem to bring up is whether or not our belief in God's existence is a matter of knowledge or belief. Now, that's a perfectly acceptable question that we can discuss, but it has no bearing on my remarks, because the various -theism positions are defined in terms of belief, not knowledge:

atheism - the belief that no god exists
theism - the belief that god exists
monotheism - the belief that one god exists
polytheism - the belief that many gods exist
pantheism - the belief that everything is god.

So whether or not atheism KNOWS that God doesn't exist, it believes as much (as do the other positions with their respective asssertions). So the question of knowledge doesn't come up yet. All this stands in direct refutation to Wayne's argument that atheism is a lack of belief. It is not. It is a positive assertion--a belief--that God does not exist. The lack of belief is agnosticism, which comes in various shades. There is hard agnosticism which says knowledge is not possible (which I think is self-refuting), and then there is the more common, soft agnosticism which equates "knowledge" with belief and negates the claim to belief. That is what he was talking about.

Bottom line: atheism is not a lack of belief in God. That is agnosticism. For all modern atheists arguments, they are simply wrong on this by the definition of the word. If you don't have a belief one way or the other, you are a soft-agnostic, not an atheist.

First off I would like to distance myself from Waynepii's claim about Zeus. I feel it has no bearing on the point in discussion, and little merit in general.

I should also add that I was not responding to your comments in my previous post.

I will also admit to never having heard about soft/hard agnosticism before, I will look into it.

I think your breakdown of definitions above highlights my point. They are all couched in terms of belief, whereas agnosticism is couched in terms of knowledge. Hence the overlap.

As for atheism being the belief that there is no God, I'm not convinced. I was under the impression that atheism could mean 'without theism'. No more, no less.

May I ask why you find hard agnosticism to be self refuting?

[Jac3510]

My apologies if I misunderstood the context of your comments! I admit that I have not followed this thread as closely as others.

As far as your specific question goes, hard-agnosticism is self-refuting because for the same reason that any absolute skepticism is self-refuting. In claiming knowledge is impossible about an issue, it assumes knowledge of that issue. In saying "It is impossible to know that God exists" you are actually saying "I know that it is impossible to know that God exists."

In the strictest sense, I think the self-refutation is deeper than the extended statement above. Ultimately, you have to get into a discussion on the criteria for knowing something. A self-consistent hard-agnostic would have to demonstrate that there is a certain way to know something and that the knowledge of God falls outside of that methodology. If you want to propose a system you think is consistent, I'd be interested in seeing your attempt. Perhaps I should have said, more technically, that every attempt at hard-agnosticism I have seen ends up being self-defeating. Most end up relying on a positivist type epistemology, which argues that things are only knowable by the scientific method. Since God cannot be known by the scientific method (which I freely admit), then it is argued that knowledge of God is not a proper object of knowledge. Of course, this entire position (a la Ayer) is absurd, because the statement itself that things can only be known by the scientific method is not itself knowable by the scientific method!

So, like I said, seems to me to be self-refuting.

Second, as far as agnosticism and atheism overlapping, you are correct that there is some in the strictest sense of the word. Atheism is built around a belief statement (that there is no god), whereas agnosticism is built around a lack of knowledge, not belief. Consider the statement:

"I don't know if God exists" - this is, of course, classical agnosticism. But how different is it from
"I don't have any beliefs concerning God's existence."

Now, the second sentence, if true, means you necessarily have no knowledge of God's existence. So if it is true, you MUST affirm the first. That is, if you lack belief in God, you MUST affirm agnosticism. Perhaps your position may be nuanced differently in a hard or soft fashion. That is, perhaps you may lack belief because you think it is impossible to have knowledge (hard), or perhaps you only lack belief because you are not sure (soft). But in either case, you don't have knowledge. So in either case, you end up necessarily embracing agnosticism. But embracing agnosticism is not the same thing as embracing atheism.

Hopefully, that helps explain further why atheism can't be a lack of theism. It is certainly that, but it is more. It is the negation of theism. It is the rejection of theos. Again, it is inherent in the word. Theism is theos -ism. Atheism is not the negation of theism, but the -ism that negates theos. It is, again, the rejection of God.

[DannyM]

Danny cheers for the reply, I suspect we may have to agree to disagree though.

For me knowing and believing are different, although they do cover a lot of similar ground. You know that God exists and you believe that God exists. Believing in something is different, to me, from knowing something. This is where the overlapping definitions come in and why I do not see them as a logic problem. Problems conveying that knowledge to another or proving it to them is a different kettle of fish altogether.

I'm talking here about theistic agnosticism and atheistic agnosticism, not atheistic theism or vice versa.

No worries, Proinsias. While I know in my heart and in my head that God exists, I don't really "know" when pushed to empirically justify such a statement - I cannot do this. So it is still ultimately a "belief" that binds my faith. The converse is true regarding the atheist.

The atheist might say "I know there is no god". When asked to explain how he "knows" there is no god, the atheist might say "well, John never proved there *is* a god". The fact that John never proved there *is* a god has no bearing whatsoever on the atheist's original statement "there is no god". So the atheist has to prove the validity of such a statement, otherwise it has to be held on faith.

Then we come to the passive agnostic, whose only "belief" is that any belief in the existence or nonexistence of God is unknowable. For me, logically, there can be no joining up into a fancy little double barrel of atheism and agnosticism or theism and agnosticism. Two are a committed belief, the other is a passive non-comittal. There can be no connection.

Having said all that, I think I'm banging my head against a brick wall on this one with regards yourself, Proinsias. Suffice to say it's been a pleasure "talking" with you on this, and I hope we talk more in the future. You have held fast to your opinion, and you have done so with grace.

God bless ... Dan

[DannyM]

Bottom line: atheism is not a lack of belief in God. That is agnosticism. For all modern atheists arguments, they are simply wrong on this by the definition of the word. If you don't have a belief one way or the other, you are a soft-agnostic, not an atheist.

This is it, Jac - I have debated many atheists who cite their "non-belief" or "non-theism" to save any burden being put upon themselves in an argument. This simply will not do. A "non-belief", as you say, is simply agnosticism. Atheism is a firm committment to the nonexistence of a god or gods. Atheism cannot be passive; if an atheist wishes to cite a "non-belief" in place of any firm belief then I'd have to gently suggest he/she converts from atheism to a non-committing agnosticism.

God bless

[Proinsias]

My apologies if I misunderstood the context of your comments! I admit that I have not followed this thread as closely as others.

As far as your specific question goes, hard-agnosticism is self-refuting because for the same reason that any absolute skepticism is self-refuting. In claiming knowledge is impossible about an issue, it assumes knowledge of that issue. In saying "It is impossible to know that God exists" you are actually saying "I know that it is impossible to know that God exists."

In the strictest sense, I think the self-refutation is deeper than the extended statement above. Ultimately, you have to get into a discussion on the criteria for knowing something. A self-consistent hard-agnostic would have to demonstrate that there is a certain way to know something and that the knowledge of God falls outside of that methodology. If you want to propose a system you think is consistent, I'd be interested in seeing your attempt. Perhaps I should have said, more technically, that every attempt at hard-agnosticism I have seen ends up being self-defeating. Most end up relying on a positivist type epistemology, which argues that things are only knowable by the scientific method. Since God cannot be known by the scientific method (which I freely admit), then it is argued that knowledge of God is not a proper object of knowledge. Of course, this entire position (a la Ayer) is absurd, because the statement itself that things can only be known by the scientific method is not itself knowable by the scientific method!

So, like I said, seems to me to be self-refuting.

Thanks Jac, that makes sense. As I say I'd never heard of the hard/sort distinction in agnosticism. I'll pass on trying to make hard agnosticism sound consistent and stick with your self refuting definition, seems fine to me.

Next up atheism!

Second, as far as agnosticism and atheism overlapping, you are correct that there is some in the strictest sense of the word. Atheism is built around a belief statement (that there is no god), whereas agnosticism is built around a lack of knowledge, not belief. Consider the statement:

"I don't know if God exists" - this is, of course, classical agnosticism. But how different is it from
"I don't have any beliefs concerning God's existence."

Now, the second sentence, if true, means you necessarily have no knowledge of God's existence. So if it is true, you MUST affirm the first. That is, if you lack belief in God, you MUST affirm agnosticism. Perhaps your position may be nuanced differently in a hard or soft fashion. That is, perhaps you may lack belief because you think it is impossible to have knowledge (hard), or perhaps you only lack belief because you are not sure (soft). But in either case, you don't have knowledge. So in either case, you end up necessarily embracing agnosticism. But embracing agnosticism is not the same thing as embracing atheism.

Hopefully, that helps explain further why atheism can't be a lack of theism. It is certainly that, but it is more. It is the negation of theism. It is the rejection of theos. Again, it is inherent in the word. Theism is theos -ism. Atheism is not the negation of theism, but the -ism that negates theos. It is, again, the rejection of God.

Forgive me if I have missed the main thrust of your post. I think I may have read it a few too many times, changed my mind a few times and I'm not sure I'm any better off than when I first read it

Whilst I do realise that the definition(s) you give atheism is/are perfectly acceptable, I don't think it necessarily applies to all who claim the label of atheism. Having a snoop around the net for info on the prefix 'a' most places include the term 'without' as one of the few meanings and it is in this sense which I've been attempting, perhaps poorly, to say that if one wants to use the term atheist in relation to themselves and use it in this way then it is fine with me - as one can use a word in a very specific way and hopefully not be told that if they use that word they need to embrace the full range of meanings associated with that word.

If one wants to lead a life without theism, or feels that their life has generally been without theism, then I think they should be free to use the label atheism. I know that analogies and comparisons often confuse matters more but I can't help but mention asexuality - those people who have no interest or inclination towards sex, they are not necessarily taking a stand against sex, like celibacy, they simply feel they are without it - having sex and learning about it doesn't change that.

This is it, Jac - I have debated many atheists who cite their "non-belief" or "non-theism" to save any burden being put upon themselves in an argument. This simply will not do. A "non-belief", as you say, is simply agnosticism. Atheism is a firm committment to the nonexistence of a god or gods. Atheism cannot be passive; if an atheist wishes to cite a "non-belief" in place of any firm belief then I'd have to gently suggest he/she converts from atheism to a non-committing agnosticism.

God bless

"this simply will not do" - I've taken that position many times with atheist friends, those who have a firm commitment, but from a different angle. I'm not really convinced their stance is all that solid. Most people I know who are rather vocal about being atheist are those who have firm non-belief in the tradition they were brought up in, often poorly in regards to theology but not always, and extend that to rather similar traditions. Sort of: "I've decided that the particular Christianity/Islam I was raised with is rubbish, therefore I declare everything that comes under the umbrella of theism is rubbish!". They throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

On the other hand if they wish to be without theism, I'm not going to push it. There are many reasons why one may wish to be without theism as much as possible for the rest of their lives and I'm not going to put a burden on them. Some very nasty things have been done in the name of theism and I respect the wishes of those who wish to be without it - even if they go so far as to use the prefix 'a' meaning 'without' to determine worldview on theism. Logical proofs, reasonable arguments and burdens are not the sort of thing I would want to force on people who have lived with theism for far longer than I have and reached the decision that they would rather be without it for personal, and sometimes very painful, reasons.

Personally I find the idea of god/God, I'm always wary of not using a capital letter around here, fascinating. I think I have some knowledge of God and lack some knowledge of God. It's something that has always fascinated me and I can't really commit to being a theist or an atheist as I really don't know what God is, that's easily a lifetime. Since ditching Christianity over ten years ago in my early teens and having a little trip around taosim, Buddhism, Hinduism and back to the Abrahamic stuff I feel I can approach Christianity with fresher eyes than using the ones that only knew a rather specific unintelligible branch of Christianity, Polish mass doesn't mean much beyond the symbolism when you don't speak Polish.

[DannyM]

This is it, Jac - I have debated many atheists who cite their "non-belief" or "non-theism" to save any burden being put upon themselves in an argument. This simply will not do. A "non-belief", as you say, is simply agnosticism. Atheism is a firm committment to the nonexistence of a god or gods. Atheism cannot be passive; if an atheist wishes to cite a "non-belief" in place of any firm belief then I'd have to gently suggest he/she converts from atheism to a non-committing agnosticism.

God bless

"this simply will not do" - I've taken that position many times with atheist friends, those who have a firm commitment, but from a different angle. I'm not really convinced their stance is all that solid. Most people I know who are rather vocal about being atheist are those who have firm non-belief in the tradition they were brought up in, often poorly in regards to theology but not always, and extend that to rather similar traditions. Sort of: "I've decided that the particular Christianity/Islam I was raised with is rubbish, therefore I declare everything that comes under the umbrella of theism is rubbish!". They throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak..

That is their problem if they throw the baby out with the bath water - or you could just call it "irrational". I think you perhaps are talking about some people who have an indifference to God's existence or nonexistence; they do not care either way. Whatever this indifference is based upon it can only be described as agnostic - although at least the agnostic would weigh up the evidence before becoming to his non-decision.

On the other hand if they wish to be without theism, I'm not going to push it. There are many reasons why one may wish to be without theism as much as possible for the rest of their lives and I'm not going to put a burden on them. Some very nasty things have been done in the name of theism and I respect the wishes of those who wish to be without it - even if they go so far as to use the prefix 'a' meaning 'without' to determine worldview on theism. Logical proofs, reasonable arguments and burdens are not the sort of thing I would want to force on people who have lived with theism for far longer than I have and reached the decision that they would rather be without it for personal, and sometimes very painful, reasons..

Okay, but what about this- I dislike atheism. I dislike the horrendous atrocities which have been committed in the name of atheism. I deplore the atheist world view, I think it is shallow and self-gratifying - understand that I am not labelling any single atheist; I am labelling the atheistic world view. So, going on your logic, I would wish to be "without atheism", yes? And take it that I'm not coming from a theistic perspective; I simply wish to be "without atheism". This would naturally metaphorically slide me into an agnostic position, from where I then continue in my search from the data gathered and what my senses tell me, and either remain agnostic or search out theism.

Personally I find the idea of god/God, I'm always wary of not using a capital letter around here, fascinating. I think I have some knowledge of God and lack some knowledge of God. It's something that has always fascinated me and I can't really commit to being a theist or an atheist as I really don't know what God is, that's easily a lifetime. Since ditching Christianity over ten years ago in my early teens and having a little trip around taosim, Buddhism, Hinduism and back to the Abrahamic stuff I feel I can approach Christianity with fresher eyes than using the ones that only knew a rather specific unintelligible branch of Christianity, Polish mass doesn't mean much beyond the symbolism when you don't speak Polish.

Of cause the denomination factor within Christianity can be somewhat confusing, but I think there is a general middle ground to be found while remaining orthodox. Or perhaps you do not much like Christian orthodoxy. Obviouly I think Christianity to be the most natural/rational/logical path to truth. Then again the Buddhist (for example) wants to claim it is he who is the more rational. What I find with Buddhism is a massive metaphysical gap that can only be filled by God. The Buddhist wants to claim that we have moral order, i.e., that good deed (A) leads to positive outcome (B) and bad deed (A) leads to negative outcome (B). And he claims that this just happens to be "the true way of things" and to speculate on this "true way of things" in "inappropriate" and not conducive to the "Karma" required to attain "nirvana".

Now you and I know that good deed (A) does *not* "always" produce positive outcome (B). And the fact that there is *any* kind of moral order that we can claim in the main to be the norm is something that needs to be investigated. For the Buddhist to claim that this is simply "the true way of things" and to discourage any further enquiry is to deny man's inquisitive nature. It is also, for me, arrogant to claim true knowledge and expect your disciples to accept this truth while disallowing them to go beyond this boundary and to question Why things are like this? Why anything rather than nothing? (to borrow from Thomas Aquinas). Why does good deed (A) (usually) lead to positive outcome (B)? Why is there any kind of moral order at all?

Existence for me is the rational/logical clincher for God's existence. That we are here at all is purely down to God's primary cause, the first uncaused cause. I've gone off on a satsuma haven't I, Proinsias? But I did take my lead from your last paragraph!

Dan

[cslewislover]

Proinsias, have you read Anthony Flew's book yet, There Is A God. I'm reading it now, and I wonder what you think of it. He's a philosopher and former atheist.

[ageofknowledge]

I'm not sure if Flew just likes attention and this was one way to get a lot of it or his conscience finally kicked in after being dormant forever. He was raised as a Christian you know.

Honestly, it just looks to me like reverted to the deism he had before becoming an atheist.

[Proinsias]

cslewislover: I've not read that but I have seen it mentioned on the site a few times. I'll stick it on the reading list. I've not been reading very much recently but now I'm back at university and working in the evenings I'm spending a huge amount of time on public transport, which means I've got far more time for quite reading

Dan - Sorry to take so long in getting back to you. I've started typing a response a few times and deleted it. If it's ok with you I think I would like to drop this for a bit. I think I have a decent idea of your stance and it has given me lots to think about. I work slowly and I'm thinking taking on board your stance on the issue and mulling over it for a few months whilst keeping it in mind when I talk to others and read about it may be the best way for me to go at the moment. If you really want me to answer something just say so and I will do my best.

I thank you and Jac for your input.

As for the Buddhist thing, I don't really agree with how you present it but again I don't think I have the expertise to go into it and I'm not sure this is the place for it. If you do wish to talk about it feel free to start a topic and I'll do my best. I feel it is a rather difficult area to discuss, as my interest in Buddhism is to a fair extent in the realm of zen which has little respect for logic, reason and rationality.

[DannyM]

Dan - Sorry to take so long in getting back to you. I've started typing a response a few times and deleted it. If it's ok with you I think I would like to drop this for a bit. I think I have a decent idea of your stance and it has given me lots to think about. I work slowly and I'm thinking taking on board your stance on the issue and mulling over it for a few months whilst keeping it in mind when I talk to others and read about it may be the best way for me to go at the moment. If you really want me to answer something just say so and I will do my best.

As for the Buddhist thing, I don't really agree with how you present it but again I don't think I have the expertise to go into it and I'm not sure this is the place for it. If you do wish to talk about it feel free to start a topic and I'll do my best. I feel it is a rather difficult area to discuss, as my interest in Buddhism is to a fair extent in the realm of zen which has little respect for logic, reason and rationality.

Hi Proinsias, thank you for this. I hope you didn't think I was waiting, hovering for a response - I was not. I was certainly looking forward to reading your response but wasn't impatiently waiting. I enjoy reading your offerings and hope I would have liked your views on Buddhism. I'm not sure this is the place to start such a topic, so I'll perhaps leave it. Just to say there is much I admire about certain strands of Buddhism, I just think it falters for pretty much the resons you mention above; it's willingness to accept its way as the only way while silmultaneously diregarding logic, reason, and rationality. I find this perplexing and I suspect we'd have had a good discussion on it; I am able to step back and not be all negative about Buddhism; there is much I would commend in it.

Hope to speak to you soon enough.

Dan

[Jac3510]

Proin -

Very briefly, add to this thought your deliberations: a person not interested in sex is not asexual. They are non-sexual. A rock is asexual--meaning, "without a sex." Bacteria reproduce asexually.

A person who simply wants to live without theism may be described as non-theistic, but that doesn't mean that they are or are not atheistic. Atheism is a matter of belief, just like non-theism is. Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, which presupposes a lack of belief. Therefore, an agnostic does not know--therefore, they have no belief. An atheist has a belief--no God exists, whether or not they have knowledge being another question. A non-theist may either belief or not believe in God. In fact, which I preach, I often use the term 'practical atheist' to describe Christians, for many of us profess belief in God, but live as if He doesn't exist!

Atheism, then, is not a lack of belief in God. That is agnosticism of one kind or another. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Non-theism is the practical application of agnosticism--refusing to take a position on God's existence or non-existence (although many, many problems come out of that down the road, but that is for another debate!).

[Proinsias]

Proin -

Very briefly, add to this thought your deliberations: a person not interested in sex is not asexual. They are non-sexual. A rock is asexual--meaning, "without a sex." Bacteria reproduce asexually.

Hi Jac. I'm aware of the life sciences definition of the word, I was meaning it more in this way.

They are both acceptable uses to me along with the different definitions people give to atheism, I suspect the issue may be as much to do with the plasticity and evolution of language as it is about theology.

Again I'm not saying your definitions are incorrect but that the words and prefixes do not necessarily incorporate those definitions.

[Santa]

This thread sure went off topic.

[Santa]

Santa,
come on back so we can chat. Actually I am off to bed as I am working nites this week. I can be back on line around 7 pm mountain time.

I too was an athiest until age 35 or so. I have lots to share. No "bible thunping" I promise.

Go ahead.