“Atheism, in its most basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief.
An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist;
rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god…
“If we use the phrase ‘belief-in-god’ as a substitute for theism, we see
that its negation is ‘no-belief-in-god’—or, in other words, ‘a-theism.’
This is simply another way of stating ‘without theism’ or the absence of belief
in god.’
- George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God [emphases in the original]
Discuss.
UPDATE 1: I haven’t listened to it yet in its entirety, but reader Frank sent me this link to a 6-part radio debate between George H. Smith and a theist. Enjoy.
UPDATE 2: Readers, especially those who designate themselves as agnostics, might like to see one implication of Smith’s definition, as explained by Smith himself in a subsequent passage in his book:
“There are many reasons why one may not believe in the existence of a god … But regardless of the reason, if one does not believe in the existence of a god, one is an atheist; i.e., .one is without theistic belief.
“In this context, theism and atheism exhaust all possible alternatives with regard to the belief in a god: one is either a theist or an atheist; there is no other choice. One either accepts the proposition "god exists" as true, or one does not. One either believes in a supernatural being, or one does not. There is no third option or middle ground. This immediately raises the question of agnosticism, which has traditionally been offered as a third alternative to theism and atheism…
“Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being…
“Notice that agnosticism emerges as a third alternative only if atheism is narrowly defined as the denial of theism. We have seen, however, that atheism, in its widest sense, refers basically to the absence of a belief in god and need not entail the denial of god. Any person who does not believe in god, for whatever reason, is without theistic belief and therefore qualifies as an atheist.”
9 comments:
Hmmm. That seems plausible, but what does that make agnostics and what does that make people who believes that a god does not exist.
I have always classified myself as not believing in the current portfolio on offer but, like Stephen Hawking, not being confident enough in the absence of God to believe there is no such thing as a God.
One cannot "negate" something without having at least a concept of that something, or an understanding what this concept means to others.
Purporting to be an atheist is nothing more or less than saying that one does not believe the concept 'god' has practical value.
Going out to convince others of that belief is an attempt to distribute it to people who do not share it or have no position on the issue. That effort thus fulfills all conditions to be a religion itself.
Typical chicken and egg conundrum.
End of the day, atheists are like anybody else, they just want to use another instrument to try and tell other people what to do or think.
Atheism, being the negative of theism, is the word used by mystics to describe non mystics. I see it as a double negative, when used in this way - the non belief in a non existent. It conveys nothing about which mystic creed is involved, just that some arbitrary construct is rejected.
Such mysticism was, in some form, universal, pre the rise of science. Most mystic creeds have now accepted objectivity in physical identity and causality and rehashed their story line, in an effort to retain some apparent relevance.
The human ability to hold concepts, and to integrate abstractions, has only in recent times gained general acceptance as universal among humans.
The development in the use of this uniquely human ability has been rapid in recent centuries, given the known history of our species. The last few centuries has seen change at a pace that has tested each generations ability to adapt - and still does.
The battle against physical mysticism is effectively won.
The more abstract concepts of human action, are at an earlier stage of development. The current turmoil in economics, is were the battle rages, and is fundamentally a moral debate. Actions have consequences.
Glen Beck V Obama is an in house squabble over the meaning of sacrifice. They both promote the same moral view, but disagree, on the recipients of sacrifice,and the degree of force involved.
The real battle evolving is change from a widely held, and essentially tribal morality, promoted by mystic creeds, with reality based concepts, in an increasingly global economy.
Perhaps some of the younger readers here will be as amassed at the changes in this field, in this century, as those in the twentieth century were with the development of science and technology.
Ken
I'm agnostic in that I don't know if we can prove the existence of God one way or the other but I'm atheistic in that I've come to the conclusion that there is no God (pending some pretty damn compelling evidence to the contrary).
So does that make a polytheist someone who believes in one God, but believes in It several times over? Many-beliefs-in-God
Bez
The term atheism refers to an absence of belief in a religious deity. An absence of belief is not belief. An absence of religious belief is not a religion. Absence is not presence.
You need to read the quote again, carefully this time, as you clearly didn't understand its import the first time around.
LGM
"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature" - Frank Lloyd Wright
@sagenz/bez/Damian
If I were to tell you that a gremlin resides in my garden, and that he gives me daily guidance on how I should conduct my life - would you proceed to look for gremlins in your own backyard?
Hopefully not. If so, you could be said to be a-gremlinist.
To say instead you're an 'agnostic' on the issue of gremlinism would be a cop out, because:
a) I've offered no evidence of the existence of gremlins,and
b) Their existence would contradict several things you do believe in.
It doesn't require knowledge of my garden, or any concept of what gremlinism means to me, to be a-gremlinist.
If you entertain the idea that gremlins *might* exist based on my claim (and proceed to look for them every time you're in the garden), you wasting your precious time on something completely non-productive.
The only rational response is to waste no mental energy on even considering my arbitrary claim.
One cannot "negate" something without having at least a concept of that something, or an understanding what this concept means to others.
Purporting to be an atheist is nothing more or less than saying that one does not believe the concept 'god' has practical value.
Going out to convince others of that belief is an attempt to distribute it to people who do not share it or have no position on the issue. That effort thus fulfills all conditions to be a religion itself.
One cannot "negate" something without having at least a concept of that something, or an understanding what this concept means to others.
Purporting to be aunicornist is nothing more or less than saying that one does not believe the concept 'unicorn' has practical value.
Going out to convince others of that belief is an attempt to distribute it to people who do not share it or have no position on the issue. That effort thus fulfills all conditions to be a religion itself.
Utter nonsense. There are an infinite number of things not-believed by every single person alive (and the dead disbelieve even more things, having no beliefs at all!), so you're suggesting that everybody subscribes to an infinite number of religions? ;)
Post a Comment