Reply #129: More

[beam me up scottie]

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labelling the others as agnostics or simply non-theists.

Although atheists often share common concerns regarding empirical evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Thus, atheism is not a religion. Additionally, there are certain individuals whose religious or spiritual beliefs some might describe as atheistic, though those holding such beliefs do not normally describe themselves as atheists.

Atheism includes, but is not equivalent to, the position of antitheism, the active opposition to theism.

Etymology

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god") meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, expressing a total lack of relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, godless, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs: "atheism". Cicero transliterated atheos into Latin. The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other.

A.B. Drachmann (1922) notes:

Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotes; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed. (p.5)

In English, the term atheism is the result of the adoption of the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves" actually predates atheism, being first attested in about 1571 (the phrase Italian atheoi is recorded as early as 1568). Atheist in the sense of practical godlessness was first attested in 1577. The French word is derived from athée, "godless, atheist", which in turn is from the Greek atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, with theism and deism following in 1678 and 1682, respectively. Deism and theism exchanged meanings around 1700 due to the influence of atheism. Deism was originally used with a meaning comparable to today's theism, and vice-versa.

The Oxford English Dictionary also records an earlier irregular formation, atheonism, dated from about 1534. The later and now obsolete words athean and atheal are dated to 1611 and 1612, respectively.

Types and typologies of atheism

Many people have disagreed on how best to characterize atheism, and much of the literature on the subject is erroneous or confusing. There are many discrepancies in the use of terminology between proponents and opponents of atheism, and even divergent definitions among those who share near-identical beliefs.

Among proponents of atheism and neutral parties, there are two major traditions in defining atheism and its subdivisions. The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe gods don't exist (strong atheism) and those who are simply not theists (weak atheism). George H. Smith, Michael Martin, and (formerly) Antony Flew fall into this tradition, though they do not use the same terminology. (Flew has recently adopted a form of deism.)

The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism. Ernest Nagel, Paul Edwards and Kai Nielsen are prominent members of this camp. Using this definition of atheism, "implicit atheism", lack of theism without the conscious rejection of it, may not be regarded as atheistic at all, and the umbrella term nontheism may be used in its place.

A third tradition, more common among laypeople, understands atheism even more narrowly than that. Here, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the belief that there is no god. Such usage is not exclusive to laypeople, however--atheist philosopher Theodore Drange uses the narrow definition.<514>

Atheism as lack of theism

Among modern atheists, the view that atheism means "without theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency. This very broad definition is justified by reference to etymology as well as consistent usage of the word by atheists.

However, this definition of atheism has not gone unchallenged. Although, over the last few hundred years, atheism has evolved and broadened beyond the narrow meaning of "wickedness", impiety, heresy and religious denial, as well as pantheism and similar beliefs, it is less commonly understood to include everything not explicitly theistic. Whether a writer's definition of atheism as an "absence" or "lack" of theistic belief is in fact intended to mean "not theistic" in the widest possible sense, or just refers to particular forms of the rejection of theism (see below), is often ambiguous.

However, while this definition of atheism is frequently disputed, it is not a recent invention; this use has a history spanning over 230 years. Two atheist writers who are clear in defining atheism so broadly that uninformed children are counted as atheists are d'Holbach (1772) ("All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God"<515>) and George H. Smith (1979).

According to Smith:

The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child without the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.<516>

One atheist writer who explicitly disagrees with such a broad definition is Ernest Nagel (1965):

Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. (p.460-461)

For Nagel, atheism is the rejection of theism, not just the absence of theistic belief. However, this definition leaves open the question of what term can be used to describe those who lack theistic belief, but do not necessarily reject theism.

The obsolete word atheous, first recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary as a synonym of atheism or impiety, is sometimes used to mean "not dealing with the existence of a god" in a purely privative sense, as distinguished from the negative atheistic. This 1880 coinage captures some of what is intended by the broad definition of atheism, though it is hard to sustain the claim that the philosophical rejection of theism can be characterized in such terms.

Implicit and explicit atheism


A chart showing the relationship between the weak/strong (positive/negative) and implicit/explicit dichotomies. Strong atheism is always explicit, and implicit atheism is always weak.

The terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism were coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18).

Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it." Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it", which, according to Smith, is sometimes called antitheism (see below).

For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further according to whether or not the rejection is on rational grounds. The term critical atheism is used to label the view that belief in god is irrational, and is itself subdivided into a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being"; b) the view usually expressed by the statement, "god does not exist" or "the existence of god is impossible"; and c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p.17).

Although Nagel rejects Smith's definition of atheism as merely "lack of theism", acknowledging only explicit "atheism" as true atheism, his tripartite classification of rejectionist atheism (commonly found in the philosophical literature) is identical to Smith's critical atheism typology.

The difference between Nagel on the one hand and d'Holbach and Smith on the other has been attributed to the different concerns of professional philosophers and layman proponents of atheism (see Smith (1990, Chapter 3, p.51-60 <517>), for example, but also alluded to by others).

Everitt (2004) makes the point that professional philosophers are more interested in the grounds for giving or withholding assent to propositions:

We need to distinguish between a biographical or sociological enquiry into why some people have believed or disbelieved in God, and an epistemological enquiry into whether there are any good reasons for either belief or unbelief... We are interested in the question of what good reasons there are for or against God's existence, and no light is thrown on that question by discovering people who hold their beliefs without having good reasons for them. (p.10)

So, in philosophy (Flew and Martin notwithstanding), atheism is commonly defined along the lines of "rejection of theistic belief". This is often misunderstood to mean only the view that there is no God, but it is conventional to distinguish between two or three main sub-types of atheism in this sense (writers differ in their characterization of this distinction, and in the labels they use for these positions).

The terms weak atheism and strong atheism (or negative atheism and positive atheism) are often used as synonyms of Smith's less-well-known implicit and explicit categories. However, the original and technical meanings of implicit and explicit atheism are quite different and distinct from weak and strong atheism, having to do with conscious rejection and unconscious rejection of theism rather than with positive belief and negative belief.

People who do not use the broad definition of atheism as "lack of theism", but instead use the most common definition "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods" <518> would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (implicit atheism) as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as "skeptic" or "agnostic" or "non-atheistic nontheism", for this position.

Atheism interpreted as immorality

The first attempts to define or develop a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. These attempts were expressed in terminologies and in contexts which reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers. A diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato, and common distinctions have been established between practical atheism and speculative or contemplative atheism.

Practical atheism

Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance and infidelity. Practical atheists behaved as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist. Maritain's typology of atheism (1953, Chapter 8) proved influential in Catholic circles; it was followed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (see Reid (1967)). He identified, in addition to practical atheism, pseudo-atheism and absolute atheism (and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Flew). For an atheist critique of Maritain, see Smith (1979, Chapter 1, Section 5).<519>

According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne (1961, p.10), "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law."

According to Karen Armstrong (1999):

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic... In his tract Atheism Closed and Open Anatomized (1634), John Wingfield claimed: "the hypocrite is an Atheist; the loose wicked man is an open Atheist; the secure, bold and proud transgressor is an Atheist: he that will not be taught or reformed is an Atheist". For the Welsh poet William Vaughan (1577 -1641), who helped in the colonisation of Newfoundland, those who raised rents or enclosed commons were obvious atheists. The English dramatist Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) proclaimed that the ambitious, the greedy, the gluttons, the vainglorious and prostitutes were all atheists. The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist. (p.331-332)

On the other hand, the existence of serious speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, or conceptualized as hatred of God, or a fight against God. This is why Borne finds it necessary to say, "to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only 'practical atheists' who through pride or idleness disregard the divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question." (p.18)

Martin (1990, p.465-466) suggests that practical atheism would be better described as alienated theism.

Other pejorative definitions of atheism

When denial of the existence of "speculative" atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless often repressed and criticized by narrowing definitions, applying charges of dogmatism, and otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of euphemistic alternative terms like secularist, empiricist, agnostic, or bright is that atheism still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism (godless is still used as an abusive epithet).

Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, the originators of the term Bright, made this explicit in an essay published in 2003:

Our personal frustration regarding labels reached culmination last fall when we were invited to join a march on Washington as "Godless Americans." The causes of the march were worthy, and the march itself well planned and conducted. However, to unite for common interests under a disparaging term like godless (it also means "wicked") seemed ludicrous! Why accept and utilize the very derogatory language that so clearly hampers our own capacity to play a positive and contributing role in our communities and in the nation and world?<520>

Gaskin (1989) abandoned the term atheism in favour of unbelief, citing "the pejorative associations of the term, its vagueness, and later the tendency of religious apologists to define atheism so that no one could be an atheist..." (p.4)

Despite these considerations, for others atheist has always been the preferred name. Charles Bradlaugh once said (in debate with George Jacob Holyoake, 10 March 1870, cited in Bradlaugh Bonner (1908)):

I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie. I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect... I do not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word Atheist, I would fight until men respect it. (p.334)

For more on repressive definitions of atheism, see Berman (1982), (1983), (1990).

Weak and strong atheism
Main articles: Weak atheism, Strong atheism

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the assertion that no deities exist.

While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common; these terms were used by Antony Flew in 1972, although Jacques Maritain (1953, Chapter 8, p.104) used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949.<521>

Although explicit atheists (nontheists who consciously reject theism), may subscribe to either weak or strong atheism, weak atheism also includes implicit atheists - that is, nontheists who have not consciously rejected theism, but lack theistic belief, arguably including infants.

Theists claim that a single deity or group of deities exists. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they only refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Some weak atheists are without any opinion regarding the existence of deities, either because of a lack of thought on the matter, a lack of interest in the matter (see apatheism), or a belief that the arguments and evidence provided by both theists and strong atheists are equally unpersuasive. Others (explicit weak atheists) may doubt or dispute claims for the existence of deities, while not actively asserting that deities do not exist, following Wittgenstein's famous dictum, "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent."

Some weak atheists feel that theism and strong atheism are equally untenable, on the grounds that faith is required both to assert and to deny the existence of deities, and as such both theism and strong atheism have the burden of proof placed on them to prove that a god does or doesn't exist. Some also base their belief on the notion that it is impossible to prove a negative.

While a weak atheist might consider the nonexistence of deities likely on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a deity's existence, a strong atheist has the additional view that positive statements of nonexistence are merited when evidence or arguments indicate that a deity's nonexistence is certain or probable.

Strong atheism may be based on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible (positive ignosticism), or that one or more of the properties attributed to a deity are incompatible with what we observe in the world. Examples of this may be found in quantum physics, where the existence of mutually exclusive data negates the possibility of omniscience, usually a core attribute of monotheistic conceptions of deity.

Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism, though many weak atheists may be agnostics, and those who are strong atheists with regard to a particular deity might be weak atheists or agnostics with regard to other deities.

Ignosticism
Main article: Ignosticism

Ignosticism is the view that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. It is a popular view among many logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who hold that talk of gods is literally nonsense. According to ignostics, "Does a god exist?" has the same logical status as "What color is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no meaningful answers.

Ignostics commonly hold that statements about religious or other transcendent experiences cannot have any truth value, often because theological statements lack falsifiability, because of an epistemological view that renders the ontological argument nonsensical, or because the terminology being used has not been properly or consistently defined — the latter view is known as theological noncognitivism.

The use of the word "god" is thus solely a matter of semantics to ignostics, dealing with word use and technicalities rather than with existence and reality.

In Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer stated that theism, atheism and agnosticism were equally meaningless, insofar as they treat the question of the existence of God as a real question. However, there are varieties of atheism and agnosticism which do not necessarily agree that the question is meaningful, especially using the "lack of theism" definition of atheism. Despite Ayer's criticism of atheism (perhaps using the definition typically associated with strong atheism), Ignosticism is usually counted as a form of atheism; Ayer (1966) was clear on his position:

I do not believe in God. It seems to me that theists of all kinds have very largely failed to make their concept of a deity intelligible; and to the extent that they have made it intelligible, they have given us no reason to think that anything answers to it. (p226)

The ignostic position is mentioned (though the term ignostic is not used) as one of the three forms of "critical atheism" (in Smith) or "rejectionist atheism" (in Nagel). Active disbelief in god or supernatural beings is one other type of critical/rejectionist atheism. Finally, the third type is the positive claim that deities do not exist. Since critical/rejectionist atheism is a type of explicit atheism, if follows that ignosticism is a type of explicit atheism. There is some debate over whether it should be classified as weak atheism or strong atheism.

Ignosticism is distinct from apatheism in that while ignostics hold questions and discussions of whether deities exist to be meaningless, apatheists hold that even a hypothetical answer to such questions would be completely irrelevant to human existence.

Gnostic and agnostic atheism
Main article: Agnostic atheism

Agnostic atheism is a fusion of atheism or nontheism with agnosticism, the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown (weak agnosticism) or unknowable (strong agnosticism). Agnostic atheism is typically contrasted with agnostic theism, the belief that deities exist even though it is impossible to know that deities exist, and with gnostic atheism, the belief that there is enough information to determine that deities do not exist.

Agnostic atheism's definition varies, just as the definitions of agnosticism and atheism do. It may be a combination of lack of theism with strong agnosticism, the view that it is impossible to know whether deities exist to any reliable degree. It may also be a combination of lack of theism with weak agnosticism, the view that there is not currently enough information to decide whether or not a deity exists, but that there may be enough in the future.

Gnostic atheism is a more rarely used term, because often anyone who is not labeled as agnostic is assumed to be gnostic by default. Gnostic atheism also has varying meanings. When nontheism is combined with strong gnosticism, it denotes the belief that it is rational to be absolutely certain that deities do not, and perhaps cannot, exist. When it is with weak gnosticism, it denotes the belief that there is enough information to be reasonably sure that deities do not exist, but not absolutely certain. The term should not be confused with Gnosticism.

Gnostic atheism is also sometimes used as a synonym of strong atheism, and thus agnostic atheism is occasionally a synonym for weak atheism. This is similar to the more common confusion of the terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism with strong and weak atheism.

Apatheism often overlaps with agnostic atheism, such as with apathetic agnosticism, a fusion of apatheism with strong agnostic atheism.