Atheism: A belief?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not if you accept my simple criterion for the basis of a definition: usage. That is the criterion that all lexicographers go by. If you (like some) want to argue that usage is not the basis of word definitions, then you do have some obligation to propose an alternative.

You know, you've said over and over again that this is your approach, but I don't really think that it is.

If usage really was your sole criterion, you wouldn't have gone on as much as you have about aesthetics (i.e. that calling a baby an atheist "sounds weird"). You also wouldn't keep dancing in this area where very little usage for or against your case occurs at all (i.e. the topic of the beliefs of babies).

If usage really is the thing you're most concerned with, then why wouldn't your argument deal expressly with people's usage in normal, common circumstances (i.e. the predominant set of cases where they're actually used)? Could it be because in these cases, defining atheism as "lack of belief in gods" works just as well as, if not better than, defining it as "rejection of belief in gods"?

You're fond of noting how people's meanings are determined by how they actually use terms, not how they say they use them. Maybe we can use a similar approach to look at the inconsistency between your stated position and how you've actually argued your case.

BTW - I asked you a question in a post a few pages back. Hopefully you didn't miss it.

 

[Copernicus]

Hold on one minute: you're misrepresenting the survey. That's not what you asked.

You asked how people used the term themselves, not whether they considered it reasonable to classify babies as atheists.

You are making a very subtle distinction here. I didn't really want people to take a stand on the definition we've been debating. I wanted them to give an honest opinion of whether they would use the word "atheist" to describe a baby. As you point out, that does not necessarily prove your definition wrong, but this was something of a straw poll. A real investigation of usage would involve other survey questions in order to eliminate possible misinterpretations of the data.

If you were to ask me how I use the term "hockey", I'll tell you that primarily use the term to describe a game played on ice. However, this doesn't mean that I think people are wrong when they call field hockey "hockey" as well.

No, the best way to conduct such surveys is to hold up a picture or show a film and then ask people to describe the game being played. If the single word "hockey" were used to describe "field hockey", then you would need to figure out the best way to handle a definition--either by a single general definition or two distinct, more specific word senses. That is the dilemma that lexicographers (albeit not lexicologists) face.

Except for the fact that they do corroborate my sense of the word, as I demonstrated in detail.

I do insist that there is a difference between support for a definition and actual word usage. Definitions can be mistaken, because people may not be basing them purely on usage. Usage itself is collected in the form of observed data. I do think that people who call babies "atheists" are basing their usage on a definition rather than the other way around. If that kind of usage is highly restricted, it probably doesn't merit an entry in a dictionary.

... or discussed matter-of-factly, as in the case of the Wikipedia article I mentioned. You're being very selective.

The Wikipedia article actually contained support for my point of view. You just had to look at the footnotes.

You've conceded to some of the points, and I think the rest are reasonable inferences from arguments you've made, but if you really do object:

Note that these were speculative answers on your part--putting words in the mouths of imaginary people. We have no data to support them.

- when people decide that their baby isn't an atheist because they think it's actually Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim, or any religion), do you think they're correct?

That is a potential rationalization for usage that may be completely irrelevant to how they use "atheist" and "theist". Again, you have to be careful to distinguish actual usage from opinions about usage. You do not seem to get this point. If you were a linguist, you would. Linguistic intuitions can be very tricky. In any case, this would not explain why many atheists also tend to disagree with your definition.

- when people decide that their baby isn't an atheist because it's sweet and innocent, but atheists are nasty and evil, do you think they're correct?

Again, we have no evidence of this phenomenon, but it is a possible influence. However, it is contradicted by the fact that many atheists also disagree with your judgment.

If you agree that both of these ideas are based on incorrect suppositions (and I hope you do), then you have to realize that some amount of the "babies can't be atheists" crowd don't support the idea because they agree with you. The the second category doesn't require acceptance of your argument, and the first category is actually incompatible with it.

I think that neither of those objections is sufficient to explain the pattern of data. When I tried the survey in a venue that was almost exclusively atheist (Secular Cafe), the majority disagreed that "atheist" was an appropriate label for babies. Neither of your points can explain that.

The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Like "deist" and "theist", the word "agnostic" can have more than one word sense.

Because the term is correct in this case, and because correctness of language matters to me.

Then explain what your criterion for "correct" terminology is. What determines it? In the case of the "lacks belief" definition, I think that the definition itself is being used to motivate usage, not the other way around.

 

[Copernicus]

A light bulb just went on in my head:

When we were discussing the definition of the word "god", you brushed off the problems at the edges of the term "god" by arguing that words only need to have validity in the mainstream, core sense of the word. Why have you gone against this approach on the word "atheist"?

I mean, hopefully we will both agree that the question of whether babies are atheists lies at the edge of the meaning of the term "atheist": effectively, you're arguing that this usage lies just beyond the edge, and I'm arguing that it lies just within.

So... given your position about how words are used when it comes to the word "god", why have you taken the opposite tack on the word "atheist"?

My view is that the only time people use the label 'atheist' to classify a baby is in venues where atheists debate theism. What turns me off about such arguments is that they fly in the face of the facts. Most people who know what gods are believe in at least one. Most people look around them and see evidence of their gods everywhere. Telling theists that they bear the burden of proof is one of the easiest arguments for theists to dismiss, although it feels very convincing to atheists. It is a somewhat ineffective debate tactic.

 

[Willamena]

If usage really was your sole criterion, you wouldn't have gone on as much as you have about aesthetics (i.e. that calling a baby an atheist "sounds weird"). You also wouldn't keep dancing in this area where very little usage for or against your case occurs at all (i.e. the topic of the beliefs of babies).

The aesthetic value "strange" supports usage, though. Things commonly used in a particular way will "sound strange" when thrust into uncommon usage.

"Word!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are making a very subtle distinction here.

Well, it was a subtle (but important) misrepresentation on your part.

Analogy: if the question was instead "what should people drink in the mornings?" and your position was that it is wrong to drink tea in the morning, it would not support your case if you presented a survey where even 100% of the respondents said they drank coffee, because "I drink coffee" does not necessarily imply "I think it's wrong to drink tea".

That's like what you were doing when you represented the survey the way you did. "I use the word this way" does not necessarily imply "I think it's wrong for you to use the word that way".

I do insist that there is a difference between support for a definition and actual word usage.

Red herring.

Your claim just now was that the dictionary definition supports your claim that I'm wrong. I showed, at length, that my definition is perfectly well-accommodated by the dictionary definitions of the terms involved. Your new apparent position that dictionary definitions don't matter that much doesn't change this fact.

Note that these were speculative answers on your part--putting words in the mouths of imaginary people. We have no data to support them.

And therefore no data to support the idea that their effect on usage is negligible, which you would need if you want to claim usage as support of your position, even if you were right about how people use the term.

That is a potential rationalization for usage that may be completely irrelevant to how they use "atheist" and "theist". Again, you have to be careful to distinguish actual usage from opinions about usage. You do not seem to get this point. If you were a linguist, you would. Linguistic intuitions can be very tricky. In any case, this would not explain why many atheists also tend to disagree with your definition.

What do atheists have to do with it? When it suited you, you were all about the "general English-speaking population". Are we back to just considering atheists now? Or are there no Catholics in your "general English-speaking population"?

Again, we have no evidence of this phenomenon, but it is a possible influence. However, it is contradicted by the fact that many atheists also disagree with your judgment.

Atheists who were raised in a culture that has religious influences, or who were actually raised in a religious setting themselves. What effect has that had? I have no idea, but it's your argument that implicitly declares this effect to be negligible. You're the one with the burden of proof here.

I think that neither of those objections is sufficient to explain the pattern of data. When I tried the survey in a venue that was almost exclusively atheist (Secular Cafe), the majority disagreed that "atheist" was an appropriate label for babies. Neither of your points can explain that.

Unless they explicitly said that "atheist" was an inappropriate label for babies because they agree with your definition, then your conclusion that they support your case is based on inferences on your part. Are those inferences valid? I have no idea; they're up to you to defend.

Then explain what your criterion for "correct" terminology is. What determines it?

Usage... what you claim as your Holy Grail, even if you won't accept it from someone else.

You (and many other people) use the term in a narrow way. I (and many other people) use the term in a broader way. Based on usage, both are valid. Therefore, when we ask what is encompassed by a valid use of the term "atheist" the broader use determines validity.

In the case of the "lacks belief" definition, I think that the definition itself is being used to motivate usage, not the other way around.

Even if that were true, why would it matter?

According to you, usage is all that matters, and "usage motivated by the definition itself" is still usage, isn't it?

 

[Commoner]

The aesthetic value "strange" supports usage, though. Things commonly used in a particular way will "sound strange" when thrust into uncommon usage.

"Word!"

That's becuase not many people would jump to "how do babies feel about this" regardless of the definition used - that's why it sounds (an is) strange.

 

[Willamena]

The theological noncognitivist (one flavour thereof) declares that discussion of "god" is meaningless because there are no meaningful attributes, "only negatively defined or relational attributes," for "god." He concludes that there is no proper concept for "god."

Is this person an atheist, a theist, or neither?

Another way of expressing theological noncognitivism is, for any sentence S, S is cognitively meaningless if and only if S expresses an unthinkable proposition or S does not express a proposition... Although the sentence expresses an idea, that idea is incoherent and so cannot be entertained in thought. It is unthinkable and unverifiable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My view is that the only time people use the label 'atheist' to classify a baby is in venues where atheists debate theism.

And IMO, the only time that people say that a baby is not an atheist is in venues where people debate the meaning of "atheist"... yet here you are, arguing for some phantom "usage" in what is, AFAICT, a logical divide-by-zero error.

 

[Orias]

So what I am if I don't hold that belief?

You are you, Kilgore.

 

[Orias]

There is a distinction between the two, but regardless - "non-theist" being rendered useless is really not my problem. The word "atheist" itself would be useless, were religion not such a popular phenomenon.

Of course

Can you describe my atheistic belief? What is one thing that I actually believe that is necessary for me to believe in order to be an atheist? Not things I can't believe in order to be labeled "atheist", but one thing I do believe, can you give me an example? One example, the best one you can think of?

I completely agree with your statement that there are certainly different beliefs, but to specify would be a rather difficult task, since all beliefs are consistent with belief. The practices and rituals may be different sure, but the essence of belief is just that, what we think to be true.

I don't know if it would be accurate to describe such a position a belief, but there are certainly different beliefs (but not specific ones I could point to) you need to hold in order to come to this position - which is what I think atheism is, the position that you come to, not the rejected arguments/the rationale, beliefs, knowledge etc. you use to "reject" them (again, I have explained what I mean by "reject" - if you think this is not an appropriate use of the word, I gladly concede that point).

But look - if you want to call something like that a belief, simply because it's "of the mind", then you're rendering "belief" pretty useless as well. You could say that not collecting stamps is a hobby - or better, an activity, because whatever else you're doing is some sort of activity. I'm not sure how that would be appropriate.

Actually doing something and not doing something both apply to human physiology, not collecting stamps is a hobby, as much as doing nothing is also a hobby, simply because it is an act of consciousness. At every moment, One is thinking, One is doing something, even if it is nothing.

Hence the analogy, "Everything consists of nothing (or vice versa)".

Everything is "of the mind", I would of thought that to be common sense

Any other deviation would just be a way to complicate and throw people off what their main goal is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My view is that the only time people use the label 'atheist' to classify a baby is in venues where atheists debate theism. What turns me off about such arguments is that they fly in the face of the facts. Most people who know what gods are believe in at least one. Most people look around them and see evidence of their gods everywhere. Telling theists that they bear the burden of proof is one of the easiest arguments for theists to dismiss, although it feels very convincing to atheists. It is a somewhat ineffective debate tactic.

Something else just occurred to me: this tactic of yours about emphasizing which definition would work better in a debate is also an example of where your argument departs from your claim that usage is king.

 

[Orias]

Something else just occurred to me: this tactic of yours about emphasizing which definition would work better in a debate is also an example of where your argument departs from your claim that usage is king.

Well everyone does apply their own "usage", I think he was just trying to get people to see the "common" understanding of "atheism". Which is decently practical, since it applies to what most people believe, atheists and theists alike.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The aesthetic value "strange" supports usage, though. Things commonly used in a particular way will "sound strange" when thrust into uncommon usage.

... or when they're somehow disphonous, which I think is the sense that Copernicus was going for (but since it was pretty far back in the thread, I may be wrong).

The theological noncognitivist (one flavour thereof) declares that discussion of "god" is meaningless because there are no meaningful attributes, "only negatively defined or relational attributes," for "god." He concludes that there is no proper concept for "god."

Is this person an atheist, a theist, or neither?

If you can't conceive of a thing, then you can't believe in it. I'd call that person an atheist.

 

[Orias]

If you can't conceive of a thing, then you can't believe in it. I'd call that person an atheist.

Can you clarify this sentence for me please? I wouldn't want to make an argument out of a misunderstanding.

 

[Copernicus]

Something else just occurred to me: this tactic of yours about emphasizing which definition would work better in a debate is also an example of where your argument departs from your claim that usage is king.

Look, I was just trying to answer your question. That wasn't a "tactic". It was an opinion about why people sometimes insist on classifying babies as atheists. You are more likely to get that kind of usage behavior in an argument where somebody is trying to make a point, not under everyday usage.

The definition "person who lacks belief in gods" is problematic because it adequately describes all atheists. It just does not definitively describe them. And, because people treat dictionaries as authoritative, such definitions become self-fulfilling determinants of usage. That is one aspect of all this that makes your definition so controversial. Another is that theists frequently do try to promote the idea that atheism is a type of religious faith--a category mistake, IMO. So claiming that atheism is not a belief at all is a way of defending against that ploy by theists. I just think that it is better to admit that atheism is a belief, albeit a negative belief. There is no need to promote nuanced definitions in order to make the case that atheism fails to qualify as a religion. Theism per se also fails to qualify as a religion.

 

[Orias]

Copernicus,
It is very telling to find out that NO tribe has ever benn found on earth, no matter how remote or isolated, that does not worship a god of some kind.
Atheism is a religion!!! The only thing about that is They are Idolaters, because the worship themselves, and there will be NONE in God's Kingdom, 1Cor 6:9-11, Rom 3:5,6, Gal 5:19-21,Eph 5:5,6, Col 3:5,6.
All who call on the NAME of God will be saved, Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13. How can anyone call on a person who they think does not exist???
It is very interesting to read what God had recorded about people who do not believe in Him. Consider Rom 1:16-23, which goes on to explain that there is no excuse for not SEEING the one who is INVISIBLE, by the things made.
Science knows that there is no such thing as ABIOGENESIS.
Science knows that there is nothing but chaos, if there is no mind to control things.
Think about the COSMOS. The very word COSMOS means harmony. The Big Bang Theory is pure HOGWASH. Science knows that one of the vey basic laws of nature is; In an explosion you have chaos, and the bigger the explosion the greater the chaos. Everything in nature is in complete harmony.
People become atheists because the invariably want to do what they want to do, when they want to do it. They do not accept that anyone has the right to require them to obey certain laws. Therefore their only alternative is to remove God.
The truth is: in this system of things a person may very well get along better without believing in God. The only problem is our period in this life is very short, and when a wicked person dies his hope dies with him, Ps 9:5, Prov 11:7. God made mankind to live forever, how much time to enjoy life in a paradise,the atheist will miss!!!
It has been said by atheists, that the only alternative to evolution is creation, and that, to them, is unthinkable. TOO BAD, TOO BAD!!! God is a loving Father to all His loyal ones and He has in store many joyous things that we cannot now, even imagine.

Ugh...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I just think that it is better to admit that atheism is a belief, albeit a negative belief.

Yes, like being a million dollars in debt makes you a millionare, albeit a negative millionaire.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You are you, Kilgore.

Indeed, Kilgore, the person who doesn't hold the belief that god exists. Atheist is a label that works for that. There are other labels that accurately apply to me as well. If someone else has the need to define me as something other than an atheist, I suppose that's their choice. Most people I interact with know what I'm talking about though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you clarify this sentence for me please? I wouldn't want to make an argument out of a misunderstanding.

Well, first off, remember that I define atheism as lack of belief in gods.

I think we can consider belief to be intellectual assent to a concept: effectively, you think of a thing, and then think "yes, I believe that."

The non-cognitivist says that there is no proper concept for "god"... therefore, there's no way to think of a god. You're missing the first step, without which the second step ("yes, I believe in that") can't happen.

IOW, a theist is anyone who thinks "yes, I believe in that" in at least one case where "that" refers to a god. A theological noncognitivist says that "that" can never refer to a god. Therefore, he can't have any belief in any gods. Since (IMO) an atheist is someone who doesn't have belief in any gods, a theological noncognitivist fits the bill.

 

[Orias]

Indeed, Kilgore, the person who doesn't hold the belief that god exists. Atheist is a label that works for that. There are other labels that accurately apply to me as well. If someone else has the need to define me as something other than an atheist, I suppose that's their choice. Most people I interact with know what I'm talking about though.

I hope you don't think I was ever trying to label you Kilgore.

It is I who voiced to abstain from labels, because they are misleading.