Defining Atheism: Part Two
As we discussed previously, there are varied definitions of atheism.
Today I’d like to discuss the topic as it relates to the atheist burden of proof. (Read the comments there by Dave Walker - they are the reason for this post.)
Basically, if atheism asserts that there is no God, atheists assume burden of proof for that claim. If, however, they are simply not believing that God exists, and make no claim in regard to God’s existence or non-existence, then there is no burden of proof on atheists.
The Dictionary Definitions
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy states:
Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God.
The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) defines atheism as:
atheism: (from Greek atheos, “without God, denying God”) Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines atheism as:
1 a. Disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity.
1 b. The doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity.
Webster’s first definition could be considered ambiguous. Some would argue that disbelief is the same as “lack of belief”; others would argue that it entails a decision, in particular a denial.
We can see the difference in the statements:
I assert that God does not exist. (denial)
Compare to:
I do not know whether or not God exists. (Definitely lacking belief, but in no way indicating belief that God doesn’t exist.)
The question comes down to does atheism involve believing that God doesn’t exist?
Common usage would indicate that believing that God doesn’t exist is the core position of atheism.
If atheism is simple absence of belief in God, then there is no opposition to the God hypothesis in that position. Is Jimmy Hoffa dead? I don’t know. I lack belief in his death. That doesn’t mean I think he is alive. Neither do I think he is dead. I simply don’t know either way. Frankly, I don’t care either way.
In common usage, however, the majority of those who self-identify with atheism are not lacking belief. They do believe that God doesn’t exist, and they assert that belief as truth. “I don’t know” is not where they park their cars. “I do know that God doesn’t exist, and I’ll oppose any assertion to the contrary” is the parking lot that is full of atheists.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
All very philosophically sound I’m sure but what about the fact that there’s no
evidence to make anyone propose the existence of a god in the first place?
why single gods out from a multitude of other unprovable and evidence free
items that one could bring up to argue about. Why hasn’t The Oxford
Companion To Philosophy and Webster’s International Dictionary devoted
entries to A-fairyism, A-santaism, A-teapotism and A-t’pauism. [the last of
these is for a type of person who doesn’t believe in Spock’s mother].
In a world of fairness and justice, shouldn’t every dubious entity to find
expression in the human imagination be accorded an A prefixed entry in the
Webster’s to define non believers?
January 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I don’t single out gods. In fact, I’m pretty sure nobody does. The question isn’t really about God so much as it is about the metaphysical. The soul, ghosts, God and gods, the “supernatural”. The question that concerns most people is whether or not the physical universe is the only universe.
I have to admit, I find the question interesting. I don’t see any evidence for “souls” or non-physical reality, but then we don’t see any evidence for alien civilizations either, and that doesn’t stop our curiosity.
Words are often the product of necessity. If enough people become interested in denying that souls exist, maybe we will have a word for that. Just don’t tell James Brown.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:07 am
having no personal experience of the supernatural I regard it as a human
invention devised to make more palatable the bitter pill of death, but would like
to be proved wrong.
I share your curiosity about alien life. If it exists on distant worlds orbiting
other stars, who is to say that evolution would necessarily produce intelligent,
technologically adept apemen like us? We aren’t the target of Earth evolution
but just one of an infinite range of possible species, so it follows that any
intelligent aliens on a far flung planet could be of a completely different
pattern. Brainy fish creatures, huge reptiles or peculiar luminescent floating
plaques on a liquid world might represent the dominant life forms, with no
Earthlike technologies enabling them to communicate their presence to us.
My hope is that alien life might be found in my lifetime in our solar system,
perhaps in microbial form beneath the crust of an area of Mars where water
exists or under the surface of Jupiter’s mysterious satellite, Europa.
Soul music is another matter. I don’t associate soul with any kind of
disembodied entity, it’s more like hearing an authentic voice that hits the spot,
stimulates the correct electro chemical pleasure centre in the brain’s frontal
lobe or something. Al Green can do it for me, or Curtis Mayfield, Or Jeff Beck,
or Edward Elgar. It’s a nice feeling, but probably completely explainable within
boring old mechanistic parameters….