One of my greatest pet peeves is semantics. Too often, people become so caught up in what they think a certain word actually means that they miss the entire point of their conversation. The word is not important, dear reader: the meaning is.
In recent years, people have been trying to redefine the word atheism. The new definition that the New Oxford Dictionary offers for atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". Google defines atheism in the same way, and so does Urban Dictionary, and American Atheists, and Atheism.org. I, on the other hand, much prefer the proper and traditional definition of atheism which is used by the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language as well as theologians and philosophers the world over. Here is the correct definition of atheism:
a·the·ismˈāTHēˌizəmnounThe theological/philosophical stance which holds that the statement "There is at least one deity" is false.
I'll be frank: this new definition of atheism as a "lack of belief" is totally stupid. It is incoherent, incomplete, and it suffers logically and philosophically. Atheists aren't even fully aware of the implications of defining their atheism as such. This new definition is nothing more than a pitiful attempt of avoiding the burden of proof that the claim "there is no god" thrusts upon them.
In a deceptive game of wordplay, atheists (most particularly the New Atheist movement) have been attempting to put the burden of proof completely on the theist by declaring, "I do not believe that no gods exist. I do not believe that gods exist. I merely lack belief in any gods. I am ignorant to there being any deities at all. I am not making any special knowledge claim." Essentially, they are insisting that their theological stance is not a stance at all, because they are intellectually lazy and/or dishonest. I find that all this really does is trivialize atheism. It isn't very productive, it's intellectually dissatisfying, and in my humble opinion it is quite annoying.
On the Burden of Proof:
If a person makes a claim, then that person is a claimant. A claimant is a person who says "I know something that is true." The burden of proof dictates that the claimant is solely responsible for proving that his claim is true. Here is an example: I am a Christian, and I thusly make the claim that God does exist. For this reason, I, the claimant, have the burden of proof: I alone am responsible for proving my claim. It would be fallacious for me to attempt to ignore or shirk the burden of proof by saying, "Prove me wrong", or "You can't prove that I'm wrong". It is not your job to prove or disprove my claim. It is my job, and mine alone. Since I am making a knowledge claim, I am responsible for proving that my claim to knowledge is true.
Many atheists do not want the burden of proof, often because the burden of proof is too much for the atheist to handle (either because they are intellectually lazy, dishonest, or they simply can't find any sufficient proof to support their claim that no gods exist). They try to avoid it by either saying, "Well, I merely lack a belief in a god or gods" or "Atheism isn't a claim; it's a response to a claim". No, it is indeed a claim.
Making a Diagnosis
I'll make things very simple for everyone with a simple litmus test. This test will be able to tell you whether a person is a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic. All you have to do is ask one yes/no question, and the person's answer will determine their theological position.
Ask someone the question: "Is there a god?" If he answers "yes", then he is a theist. If he answers "no", then he is an atheist. If he answers "I do not know" or "I am not sure", then he is an agnostic.
It is very important that the test remain in the form of a question, and not a statement. By asking a question, you are prompting the person you are asking to make a knowledge claim. This is why we ask questions. Questions are how humans request knowledge claims. Answers are knowledge claims. Therefore, by asking "Is there a god?" you are forcing the person you are asking to make a claim to knowledge. You can also word the question by using the definition I provided earlier—"Do you think the claim 'There is at least one deity' is true or false?" If they answer "true", then again, they are theists. If they answer "false", they are atheists, and if they answer, "I don't know/I'm not sure", they are agnostic.
I'll make this abundantly clear: Agnostics are the ones who lack a belief in God, not atheists.
So, What Is An Atheist?
Philosophy is in essence the pursuit of knowledge. Science is the most commonplace form of philosophy. Science is an empirical philosophy: the pursuit of knowledge by means of observation and measurement. By defining atheism as a lack of belief, atheists are asserting that atheism is not a philosophical stance, but instead an autobiographical summary of their current psychological state.
I find this utterly laughable, because given this new definition of atheism, my cat, Mouser, is an atheist. Mouser utterly lacks belief in any sort of deity, so he is an atheist by this new definition. What is more, my laptop which I am using to type out this blog is also an atheist, because my laptop not only lacks belief in a god, but also lacks belief in anything! My doorknob and my beard likewise lack belief in a god, so these things are atheists as well. Most interestingly: the neurons firing in my brain—which I use to profess my belief in God—are themselves atheists. As you can see, this new definition of atheism is completely trivial and not meaningful. It certainly wasn't thought through.
This new definition, as I've said several times already, is intellectually dissatisfying, because even if atheism really is simply a lack of belief, it doesn't help to answer the question so many of us are asking: "Is there a god or not?"
Now, let's say that the New Atheists have their day, and everyone universally agrees to redefine atheism as being a lack of belief in a god. That still does not mean that only theists have the burden of proof, because there will still be people who make the claim "There are no gods", and these people will still have the burden of proof.
The only difference is that we won't call them atheists. We'll just call them something else instead.
And that, dear reader, is why I hate semantics.
I like what you have to say. I had an atheist friend who said about religion. They are either all wrong or one is right. Although, I have come to the understanding that in essence he was exempting "science" or his worldview from the lineup. But, lime you were saying, it removes the burden of proof. Atheism is a belief or philosophy like any other; only one belief can be correct.
ReplyDeleteI however, cannot fully come behind your last paragraph. The pursuit of knowledge is an aspect of philosophy, but not its entire definition. And I would say science is the observation and measurement of the universe to better understand it and so on. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your statement required some assumptions I couldn't accept. That being said, people often times misuse science as a philosophy. But in reality, science can tell the story of many philosophies. It does not exempt a philosophy that complies by it's rules. I myself, like the atheist, am fully capable of using science to back up my worldview. So saying science itself is a philosophy is not true. It is mishandled to become a philosophy, like someone could misuse information on a conspirator's website to form a philosophy. I'm not exactly composing this, just throwing out thoughts and points.
I like what you have to say. I had an atheist friend who said about religion. They are either all wrong or one is right. Although, I have come to the understanding that in essence he was exempting "science" or his worldview from the lineup. But, lime you were saying, it removes the burden of proof. Atheism is a belief or philosophy like any other; only one belief can be correct.
ReplyDeleteI however, cannot fully come behind your last paragraph. The pursuit of knowledge is an aspect of philosophy, but not its entire definition. And I would say science is the observation and measurement of the universe to better understand it and so on. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your statement required some assumptions I couldn't accept. That being said, people often times misuse science as a philosophy. But in reality, science can tell the story of many philosophies. It does not exempt a philosophy that complies by it's rules. I myself, like the atheist, am fully capable of using science to back up my worldview. So saying science itself is a philosophy is not true. It is mishandled to become a philosophy, like someone could misuse information on a conspirator's website to form a philosophy. I'm not exactly composing this, just throwing out thoughts and points.