I'd like to discuss the validity of the "lacker" position regarding belief in or about god, but what I'm going to suggest might be controversial, so let me take a moment to introduce myself, and beg patience of you.
I was raised in a deeply fundamentalist, Evangelical home, being both a "pastor's kid" and "missionary kid", aka PK/MK. I ruined my formal education at BIOLA university, home of Talbot School of Theology, which counts among its faculty one William Lane Craig, apologist for genocide, and my own step-father as alumni. I had always been skeptical of the pulpit, as it mostly just seemed, well, rather more vulgar than what seemed appropriate to me, but I could not - for reasons having nothing to do with intellect - overcome the tired cosmological and ex nihilo arguments to leave my faith on the basis of reason. The reason for this, as I suspect it is with many struggling theists, is that my relationship to my family depended on being a Christian "in good standing". I became an atheist a few years ago, after a number of crises that led me to confront what I already knew was true, about my parents, and about "god". As an atheist, I now assert that it is true that the biblical god( s ) objectively do not and cannot exist. Which is to say, I have a definite belief about the Christian god.
It turns out, however, that many of my peers don't agree with me, and some go so far as to claim mine is a position impossible to hold. No less than Dr. Dawkins has claimed it is "technically" impossible to disprove the existence of god.
Such non-believers claim the title of atheist on the grounds that they "lack" belief in god, but this confuses me. Why should withholding acceptance of a claim imply rejection of it? Surely to withhold belief in the claim is to neither accept nor reject the claim, which means to such atheists that the possibility of god X's existence is a live question. I suggest this is the position of a skeptic, not an atheist.
I know that atheist is now commonly defined as lacking or "without" a belief in god, but this is a neologism. The original Greek uses the affix "a-" as a privative, meaning it negates the root to which it is attached. Thus atheist means "not-god-believer", which is to say one who believes the claimed god does not exist. This is why Christians in the Roman period could accuse pagans as being "atheists", despite the fact that they believed in other gods. Christians in fact would often accuse each other of being atheists on the grounds of their differing interpretations of scripture. If they had understood atheism as lacking belief, the term would have been a useless means of marking religious differences.
I do realize that language changes over time, but the logic of relationships do not. So while signifiers might shift in relation to their signs, the relationships between signs do not. This leads me to wonder how is it that "lackers" justify their apparent rejection of theists' claims, often as not having met a standard of proof, without establishing that same standard as regards their own belief, or rather lack of. Such a position offers no information not already indicated by the term "skeptic", except perhaps a hostility to the theists' claims not merited by their own intellectual standards.
So if atheism is the response to the question "It is the case that god X exists", how is it an answer to this claim to respond by saying "I have no belief in the truth or falsity of this claim", rather than the only other logical answer to this bivalent, ontological claim that "It is the case that god X does not exist?"
Thanks for taking the time to read, and I appreciate your insights.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I do not get wrapped up in philosophical tangles . I leave finding proof of gods nonexistence up to those so inclined. I simply state that there is no god. No one has convinced me otherwise.
Right. I was born not believing in god (hadn't even heard the story yet), I didn't believe the story when I did hear it, and I don't believe it now. If that isn't a lack of belief, so be it.
In my opinion this whole mess of what is an atheist is a thinly veiled attempt to define atheism/atheists out of existence. We exist; get over it.
On the contrary, its the redefinition of atheism which threatens to reduce it to mere skepticism, and the proliferation of continua designed to modify or qualify the meaning of atheism, from weak/strong to gnostic/agnostic all, by definition, confuse and conflate the meaning of the word, which no longer means to believe the god-claim is false, but merely not to have made a decision.
I quite agree, atheists exist. I prefer not to redefine them to oblivion.
Which is exactly the relationship to reason and logic taken by theists, if its inverse: both assume the conclusion, the one positive and the other negative. As an epistemological question of justified true belief, both reject the need for justification and assert truth arbitrarily.
I prefer to reject the magical thinking as well as the magic of theism.
In any case, your response fits that of the skeptic, not the atheist, as it is entirely about your own belief, not the ontic status of an actually existing god - or in fact a non-existant one.
I have not seen any evidence for any god(s). So I have a lack of belief in god(s) of human creation.
Look "atheist" is an explanation, not a label. I have often stated that "atheist" is a term made up by those that made up their god. I consider myself just a normal person. The fact that I don't believe in myths does not in any way make me abnormal. Actually, I think if you believe in a myth, base your whole life on a myth, then YOU are the one that is abnormal. I am not lacking. I don't have to disprove anything. I didn't make up a myth.
Don't you find it odd that all the believers sometimes title their belief "Looking for the truth"? They never seem to find it. They keep searching for a god and never find it. Looking for something that isn't there, for something that has no evidence that it has ever been there, is not only abnormal but just bat shit crazy!
Thanks for your comment, with which I mostly agree. You're right that it is not your responsibility to prove god's existence. If you deny that the god exists, however, you would be making a claim which also requires justification. I just don't understand why so many "atheists" consider this difficult, to say nothing of impossible. At least as regards the biblically based religions. I think you are quite consistent and correct except in what you argue the label represents, in terms of an explanation.
Correct. I don't make the claim that gods don't exist. I have never seen any proof or any good evidence that gods exist so I don't believe. IF I made a claim that gods don't exist, then I would have the burden of proof.
Exactly. And in not making that claim, one is explicitly leaving open the possibility that such a god exists, which is to say one approaches the question skeptically. It is my view that in describing this position as "atheism", we do ourselves discredit by conflating two different views of the god-claim as well as two different standards of proof. When skeptics demand a different standard of proof from theists than they do of themselves, such as in refusing to falsify the god-claim but acting as if it was false, they not only open themselves to charges of hypocrisy, but they muddy the meaning of atheist as well. It's not for nothing that there is so much emphasis on calling atheists "religious" these days.
Atheism is the lack of belief in god claims because of lack of evidence or proof that gods exist. Simple.
When a person attempts to harness a familiar notion of the word (standard) and apply it to the theological question, he is suspect of a complete misappropriation of the word. The problem, ongoing, is evident in the attempt to do just that, which is loosely disguised, and cloaks a many-colored beast of doubt swelling in the chests of those who so dearly need their gods, belief systems and related trappings.
It isn't a question turned towards atheists at all. It's a question turned inwardly by theists who cannot comprehend a lack of a theological presence without demanding a damning proof. Atheists confound this demand by simply dismissing any request for proof. Atheism is not about proof because obvious throughout the human time line into antiquity man is guilty of creating and vaulting skyward his gods, and admitting as much. He is addicted to his own imagination's fermentation of immortality.
Immortality requires certain applications of logic, twisted for use, that sets the stage of familiarity for the (ignorant) masses in order to accept the notion in its entirety. There must be somone to please and to guide them. That would be a god. There must be a home for and sense of community to find comfort in. That would be heaven. There must be rules to follow. That would be the doctrine. There must be reward. That would be eternal joy. And, so on, the theist must be made to understand and grasp these criteria before immortality makes any sense to him, must less attraction. But, there must also be a penalty for not seeking heaven and that would be hell. Not much of a choice and the "logic" applied tells us the only choice is the best.
Theists simply cannot fathom not wanting that and the perplexing dilemma leads to cross-examining atheism for the logic employed to dismiss it all. The atheists ignore such a call to proof because the historicity of all theology is grounded in man, not gods.
The entire argument for god is without a doubt the saddest of jokes man has played upon himself. He created god to placate his own fears, indoctrinated himself into believing his own contrivances, and then demands proof that the god of his own contrivance is false.
I just can't fathom that argument.
I agree with the general thrust of your argument, in that it situates the debate in terms of claims initiated by theists. And I appreciate the fact that you've described the origination of the word "atheist" as within the context of theism itself, which is true. Atheism began as a pejorative and almost a threat, but was quite quickly - like the words "intellectual" or "neocon" - adopted by atheists themselves. You then go on to say:
Atheism, as a rejection of the claims of theists, began as one of the earliest applications of philosophical skepticism. When Parmenides rejected the possibility of a creator god on the basis of his "ex nihilo, nihil fit" argument, he offered a strictly logical and comprehensive refutation of the oldest argument for god's existence. Atheism and the tradition of philosophical skepticism are twinned: whereas theists simply assume the conclusion they desire, atheists are led by facts and reason to their conclusion. While it is certainly possible to be an "atheist" by simply assuming that conclusion, atheists forsake the superiority of the reasoned position, and become just as hypocritical when demanding "proof" of theists as theists are when demanding proof of atheists.
If we are to ground atheism in reason, however, we are bound to hold ourselves to the same standard as we do theists. When we claim that a given god-claim is false, we are indeed stating a proposition, and as such own the burden of proving our own claim. This is easily done, however, and the beauty of it is that the work is done entirely by the theist: in order to actually speak of something more than indefinable abstraction, from which no authority can be claimed, the theist must labor to produce a detailed and lifelike rendering of their god. The more lifelike and detailed the description, the greater the complexity and the greater likelihood for self-contradiction. The more ambiguous and abstract, the less the claim is a proposition at all.
All we must do as atheists to disprove a given god-claim is show it to be logically invalid. Any claim of omnipotence fulfills this, as does any claim of knowledge of the immaterial, and there are hosts of other such contradictions. Given that such gods can be categorically refuted, it is a wonder why so many "atheists" find it so difficult to accept this responsibility.
Anti-theism does not mean against god, it means against theism. I, like many people who call themselves atheists are appalled at the hold various god beliefs have over large sections of this world. We resist this bat shit craziness as mycob would call it. In my eyes, that makes me an anti-theist. I have been a christian, read their myths, had their dogma force fed to me, but found it lacking. I have read books of philosophical arguments for and against the concept of an actual god. My reason tells me that if after some 2000 years they still haven't come up with a valid proof for the christian god, it ain't going to happen. They have not convinced me to create a belief in their god. The only foot I leave in the religiosphere is I will say I will listen to new "proofs" with an open mind. I won't say I cannot be convinced there is a god because that would be close minded. I just say it is HIGHLY unlikely. In the meantime I will continue with the one belief I do have. I believe there are no gods. As faith implies belief without proof, I put my faith in the nonexistence of any supernatural entity. You are free to label me whatever you want. As cyberlyn has said we are many and we are all different, all brought together by lack of belief in any deity.
Consider the frame of reference. In our contemporary society with 4000 years of religious history, atheists are seen as abnormal and in the eyes of believers, we have to justify our non-belief.
Consider now if humans had no gods or religions. The frame of reference is re-set. Non-belief would be normal; indeed, atheism would not even be considered an entity, any more than non-belief today in the god Zoola on planet Zorg is an entity. In such a context, belief in a deity would be considered abnormal and would require extensive evidence and justification.
I encountered such a situation a few years ago. I worked with a Chinese scientist (Jane) who grew up in the Peoples Republic of China without any religious indoctrination. Thus, belief in any god was alien to her. A friend of Jane’s here in the US was a believer and gave Jane some bible passages to read. One day, Jane came to me asking for advice.
“What is all this?” she said, pointing to the scriptures. “They make no sense at all.”
I call myself an Atheist. The label has been part of my self identity for 44 years. If I was like Alembe's friend Jane and lived in a society without religion I would not give much thought to Atheism. However , I live in the U.S.. Every day I am reminded of my stance on gods nonexistence. My coworkers pray at our morning management meeting. I wait patiently till they are done. A neighbor invites me to church . Politely I decline. Recently the Kentucky legislature passed a bill allowing the Christian Bible to be used as a textbook in their schools. ( Donation to the F.F.R.F) Mormons and Witnesses ringing my doorbell. Former U.S. president had stated that atheists were not protected by the Constitution (paranoia sets in). Every family gathering involves magical incantations over the food before we eat. Theists say I do not have a valid moral compass . The other day a preacher said I don't have a book that I can trust , although I am reading three right now and own a wall full. If the word atheist did not exist I would have to invent it.