Are the terms "atheism" and "theism" logically consistent or useful?

[Mojo]

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that gods exist nor affirms that gods do not exist.

Agnosticism is the view that we cannot know whether or not gods exist. An agnostic can be theist or atheist; those are belief-based positions, not knowledge-based.

On the other hand, atheism is the view that gods do not exist.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It includes the view that gods do not exist, but is not limited to that (see agnosticism). You don't have to actively disbelieve in something to not believe it exists.

 

[barehl]

When I last looked at this thread, there was a fairly robust competition taking place to see who could come up with the easiest strawman to knock down. Who's in the lead at the moment?

 

[wea]

Have you a problem with Wittgenstein's Tractatus?

au contraire, just appreciating your parody

 

[Dissolution]

Nope

This is gibberish.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry, but I don’t limit the concept of atheism to monotheism. See the second meaning of God in the Oxford dictionary. But if you find the definition of Justin P. McBrayer (Fort Lewis College) vague or ambiguous, I can precise more:


Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that gods exist nor affirms that gods do not exist. On the other hand, atheism is the view that gods do not exist.

I hope it will be clear now.

No, those aren't the definitions I use. They are, in fact, the least useful definitions one could possibly imagine. Atheism does not require a positive belief that no gods exist. That's generally been the strawman definition used by theists in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. That's why you'll find resistance to allowing such incorrect usage here.

Agnostic/Gnostic is a measure of knowledge. Theism/Atheism is a measure of belief. Two different things. I can provide a schematic if it isn't clear now.

 

[jmckaskle]

When I last looked at this thread, there was a fairly robust competition taking place to see who could come up with the easiest strawman to knock down. Who's in the lead at the moment?

You may have missed my question, so I'll ask again:

Do you have a citation for the proof of this statement:

Null Selection - The result of a selection if any of the following are true:
A set is empty.
A set is infinite.
More than one item had the best comparative value AND the number of items that can be selected is less than the number of items with the best comparative value.
No selection criteria is available for the set.
No decision has been made for the set.

 

[David Mo]

au contraire, just appreciating your parody

Thank you.
It is a useful way to write because my level of English is not good and I have not many time to check my writings.

 

[David Mo]

Agnosticism is the view that we cannot know whether or not gods exist. An agnostic can be theist or atheist; those are belief-based positions, not knowledge-based.

(...)Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It includes the view that gods do not exist, but is not limited to that (see agnosticism). You don't have to actively disbelieve in something to not believe it exists.

I see you use the words atheism in a different way than I do.

To me:
1. Agnostics and atheists are different in their statements.
1.1. An atheist affirms that gods don’t exist.
1.2. An agnostic neither affirms that gods exist nor they don’t exist. Classical sceptics (agnostics) speak of “suspension of judgement”.
2. The difference lies on the linguistic level: to affirm or not to affirm an existential predicate. 2.1. This definition is indifferent to the reasons to affirm X.
3. My definition is the usual one in the philosophical academic world. You can see the two main encyclopaedias of philosophy on line: Stanford (http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html ) or IEP (http://www.iep.utm.edu/ ).
4. Regarding knowledge, I would distinguish between rational or irrational.
4.1. If an atheist presents some evidence of his beliefs, I call him rational atheist.
4.2. If an atheist doesn’t present any evidence of his belief (personal intuition, for example), I call him an irrational atheist.
4.3. It doesn’t matter if this evidence is sufficient or insufficient. This is another problem.
4.4. Theists can be also rationalists or irrationalists (fideists, usually).

For you:
5. Agnostics and atheists are different regarding their beliefs.
6. Both atheism and agnosticism coincide in the knowledge, but oppose in their beliefs.
6.1. Knowledge: They don’t know if gods exist.
6.2. But the agnostic- atheist believes that gods don’t exist
6.3. The agnostic-theist believes that a god exists at least.
7. Your definition stands on the difference between to know and to believe.
8. Your definition is common in many not academic forums.

9. The fact that my definition is usually used in the academic world doesn’t do it better or worse. That depends of the context.
10. But I have a question for you: There are atheists who affirm that they are able to know (have some evidence) that gods don’t exist (“rationalists” in my terminology). How do you do to distinguish them from those who don’t present any evidence and claim that they only believe that gods don’t exist?
10.1. Justification of the question: Most philosophers are rational atheists. We need a special cathegory for them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This may help:




Into which quadrant do you fit?

 

[Darat]

I see you use the words atheism in a different way than I do.

To me:
1. Agnostics and atheists are different in their statements.
1.1. An atheist affirms that gods don’t exist.
1.2. An agnostic neither affirms that gods exist nor they don’t exist. Classical sceptics (agnostics) speak of “suspension of judgement”.
2. The difference lies on the linguistic level: to affirm or not to affirm an existential predicate. 2.1. This definition is indifferent to the reasons to affirm X.

...snip...

I'll give you that a commonly used definition of agnostic is "fence sitting" but the actual meaning from the linguistic side is clear in it's compounding a + gnostic. So without knowledge, as Mojo states you could an atheist and also a theist but still hold an agnostic viewpoint.

And I think you are falling for conflating an everyday expression "I don't believe in gods" with being a full and nuanced philosophical statement, I would wager for most people who label themselves an atheist that isn't their intent. In every day language one would say something like "I don't believe in any gods," "Gods not exist," whilst if pressed on that that one would really say something more like "There is no evidence for the existence any entities that have the characteristics of the god or gods defined by those professing a belief in the existence of a god or gods. Therefore there is no reason to believe in any god/s (as defined by theists)".

 

[Darat]

This may help:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26744525eb36e22509.bmp[/qimg]

Into which quadrant do you fit?

I disagree with that - agnostic is a belief position not a knowledge position the agnostic quadrants should have "Believes in a god/s but believes that it is not possible to know if god/s exists"

 

[David Mo]

No, those aren't the definitions I use. They are, in fact, the least useful definitions one could possibly imagine. Atheism does not require a positive belief that no gods exist. That's generally been the strawman definition used by theists in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. That's why you'll find resistance to allowing such incorrect usage here.

Agnostic/Gnostic is a measure of knowledge. Theism/Atheism is a measure of belief. Two different things. I can provide a schematic if it isn't clear now.

1. My definition is not persuasive in favour of theism. It is the usual definition in philosophical discussions. See my previous comment, point 3. It is also used by atheist philosophers.
2. When you said “the burden of the proof falls on the theists because they affirm the existence of a god”, you give a reason to be atheist if the proof falls. You are a rational-atheist (see my previous comment, point 4.1.)
3. But in order to discuss with an agnostic (see my point 1.2) you have to present any evidence against the “abstention of judgement”.
3.1. It may be the absence of any evidence to confirm “God exists”.
3.2. It may be some argument against the existence of god, based on the induction.
3.3. It may be some characteristic fallacies of the theism.
3.4. And….
4. You are a rational atheist in every case. Not an agnostic, because you affirm that gods don't exist, based on some kind of reason or argumentation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. My definition is not persuasive in favour of theism. It is the usual definition in philosophical discussions. See my previous comment, point 3. It is also used by atheist philosophers.
2. When you said “the burden of the proof falls on the theists because they affirm the existence of a god”, you give a reason to be atheist if the proof falls. You are a rational-atheist (see my previous comment, point 4.1.)
3. But in order to discuss with an agnostic (see my point 1.2) you have to present any evidence against the “abstention of judgement”.
3.1. It may be the absence of any evidence to confirm “God exists”.
3.2. It may be some argument against the existence of god, based on the induction.
3.3. It may be some characteristic fallacies of the theism.
3.4. And….
4. You are a rational atheist in every case. Not an agnostic, because you affirm that gods don't exist, based on some kind of reason or argumentation.

It helps to think of it in terms of the burden of proof in a criminal trial. Not guilty does NOT mean that the accused didn't do the crime, only that the prosecution couldn't prove it. A finding of not guilty is not equivalent to a positive affirmation of innocence. You may think the accused is innocent or guilty. Innocence is a subset of not guilty.

Not theist (atheist) is the same. You don't need a positive affirmation that no gods exist to be an atheist. Agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist are both subsets of atheism, just as agnostic theist and gnostic theist are both subsets of theism. The choices are either 1) You believe gods exist (theist) or 2) you don't have that belief (atheist).

That gives us useful definitions of atheism and agnosticism.

 

[Pup]

10. But I have a question for you: There are atheists who affirm that they are able to know (have some evidence) that gods don’t exist (“rationalists” in my terminology). How do you do to distinguish them from those who don’t present any evidence and claim that they only believe that gods don’t exist?

There are several standard pairs of words: Hard/soft, positive/negative, strong/weak. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

 

[barehl]

You may have missed my question, so I'll ask again:

Do you have a citation for the proof of this statement:

Null Selection - The result of a selection if any of the following are true:
A set is empty.
A set is infinite.
More than one item had the best comparative value AND the number of items that can be selected is less than the number of items with the best comparative value.
No selection criteria is available for the set.
No decision has been made for the set.

I'll see if I can simplify this a little more.
A sort takes n*log time.
n is infinite.
How much time will the sort take?

Clearly, it would take an infinite amount of time.

However, it wouldn't actually be necessary to completely sort the list since we are only interested in the highest value items. If there was only a single highest value item in the list then we would only need to make a single pass through the list.
A pass takes n time.
n is infinite.
How much time will the pass take?

Again, this clearly takes an infinite amount of time. Since a single pass is the minimum that can be done for a comparison, it is not possible make a selection from an infinite list based on a comparison.

Some of the irrelevant replies have been:

• In the math that I learned from a talking squirrel (who is my only friend) these concepts don't make sense so...mumble...mumble...mumble...and that's why you are wrong.
• You can make a pass through a finite list in finite time. Well, yes if you change the criteria from infinite to finite then you get a different conclusion.
• You can make a random choice or choose the first item in the list. Well, again, the criteria is choice by comparison so if you change this to choice by something else then you get a different conclusion.

I'm still baffled why someone would claim that altering the criteria and therefore reaching a different conclusion would disprove my conclusion based on the original criteria. I will also grant that using talking squirrel math might lead someone to a different conclusion; however, I'm not familiar with talking squirrel math.

 

[David Mo]

This may help:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26744525eb36e22509.bmp[/qimg]

Into which quadrant do you fit?

Certainly it doesn't help because it introduces a new concept, "100% certain", that makes no sense for me. In my own schema "to be 100% certain" would be advantageously replaced by "to have some reasons", " to have some evidence" or similar. Under this condition, I think that a "gnostic theist" matches my concept of "rational theist", "gnostic atheist" = "rational atheist", "agnostic theist" = "irrational theist" and "agnostic atheist" = "agnostic".

I don't think that my particular position is important in a matter of definitions. But if you are curious, I will define myself as a rational atheist (according with my own definition).

 

[barehl]

It has also been suggested that this is nothing more than a semantic argument. If that is true then an intelligent philosopher should be able to handle this easily. Let's look at the William Lane Craig debate against Christopher Hitchens.

At about 18:50, Craig tries to define God in his proof that God exists. He says that God is a first cause and describes him as:

An uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power, a transcendent, intelligent mind.

We know where some of these come from. Craig assumes that God existed before the material universe existed, therefore God is immaterial and presumably only material takes up space so spaceless. Craig shortly before this claimed that infinite time was an absurdity and so God is timeless. Since Craig wants to avoid an infinite series argument on causation, God is uncaused. The transcendent description just seems to be a restatement of timeless and immaterial. The power description is presumably the amount of energy needed to create the universe. His intelligent mind argument is interesting. He says that only two things exist that are non-material, abstractions and minds. Since an abstraction couldn't be a cause, this only leaves mind. And there we have it, a definition of God from one of today's most prominent Christian apologists.

I don't see any point in debating Craig's definition. It contains obvious flaws. But I would suggest that even this attempt at a technical definition for one particular God is inadequate. So, let's try an exercise.

We have two towns: Godville and Worldville.

The people in Godville believe that a deity created everything. They believe that this deity is the source of all knowledge and wisdom, that it influences their lives, and that it grants them immortality. They have various rules that they believe were given to them by their deity and believe that only strict adherence to these rules will benefit them even if the benefit is not known. Since the people in Worldville say that they don't believe in their deity, the people in Godville refer to them as God-deniers.

The people in Worldville don't know how their world was created but reject beliefs not based on repeatable evidence or demonstration. They are open to new ideas but don't alter their behavior unless the ideas are proven to be a benefit. Since the people in Godville believe in something that has never been proven the people in Worldville refer to them as God-enthusiasts.

Another town is built called Spiritville. The people here believe that things exist beyond their experiences but they are pragmatic in their behavior.

Another town is built called Commandmentville. The people here believe that they have a set of sacred rules that must be followed but don't believe in a deity.

Godville overlaps with Spiritville in acceptance of a deity. Godville overlaps with Commandmentville in adherence to dogmatic rules. Spiritville overlaps with Worldville in pragmatic behavior. Worldville overlaps with Commandmentville in rejecting deities.

The people of Godville realize that calling the people in Worldville God-deniers is less useful because it doesn't distinguish them from Commandmentville whom they partially agree with. It also lumps them in with Spiritville whom they don't completely agree with. The people in Worldville realize that the term God-enthusiast is also less useful because it doesn't distinguish Godville from Spiritville whom they partially agree with. It also lumps them in with Commandmentville whom they don't completely agree with.

What term plus its negation would adequately describe all four towns? There isn't one. It takes a minimum of two terms to distinguish the towns from any one perspective. However, since there also multiple perspectives, there could also be as many as eight terms even in this very simple example.

 

[David Mo]

It helps to think of it in terms of the burden of proof in a criminal trial. Not guilty does NOT mean that the accused didn't do the crime, only that the prosecution couldn't prove it. A finding of not guilty is not equivalent to a positive affirmation of innocence. You may think the accused is innocent or guilty. Innocence is a subset of not guilty.

Not theist (atheist) is the same. You don't need a positive affirmation that no gods exist to be an atheist. Agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist are both subsets of atheism, just as agnostic theist and gnostic theist are both subsets of theism. The choices are either 1) You believe gods exist (theist) or 2) you don't have that belief (atheist).

That gives us useful definitions of atheism and agnosticism.

1. I don’t mention “the burden of the proof” in a legal sense. I use this expression in the current context of empirical or factual knowledge.
1.1. That was only an example.
2. What is important for me are not the names we use to refer some things but the very things.
3. I have a question to those that don't agree with my definitions.
3.1. Someone believes that gods don’t exist and that he have a good reason or evidence to believe this.
3.2. Someone believes that gods don’t exist but he has not any reason or evidence to believe this.
3.3. Someone believes that there is not any reason to say that gods exist or that gods don’t exist and so he neither believes one thing nor another.
4. How do you call these views?

5. I beg you to answer my questions, because I had already done some questions which still remain unanswered.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Certainly it doesn't help because it introduces a new concept, "100% certain", that makes no sense for me.

Maybe this one will be better for you.

In my own schema "to be 100% certain" would be advantageously replaced by "to have some reasons", " to have some evidence" or similar. Under this condition, I think that a "gnostic theist" matches my concept of "rational theist", "gnostic atheist" = "rational atheist", "agnostic theist" = "irrational theist" and "agnostic atheist" = "agnostic".

I don't think that my particular position is important in a matter of definitions. But if you are curious, I will define myself as a rational atheist (according with my own definition).

No, your personal position doesn't matter to me, I only wanted you to understand how measuring two different things in two different axes results in four quadrants. Agnosticism isn't a measure of belief. You also seem to be wanting to measure a third subject - reason or rationality. We can add a third axis if you like to measure that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. I don’t mention “the burden of the proof” in a legal sense. I use this expression in the current context of empirical or factual knowledge.

I mention it because it gives another way to imagine a similar concept if someone seems to be having difficulty with the original concept.

1.1. That was only an example.
2. What is important for me are not the names we use to refer some things but the very things.

Personally, I'm ok with that. But on this forum, we use those names and expect them to mean certain things as a matter of convention.

3. I have a question to those that don't agree with my definitions.

You already said that the names aren't important to you.

3.1. Someone believes that gods don’t exist and that he have a good reason or evidence to believe this.

So that person is an atheist.

3.2. Someone believes that gods don’t exist but he has not any reason or evidence to believe this.

That person is also an atheist.

3.3. Someone believes that there is not any reason to say that gods exist or that gods don’t exist and so he neither believes one thing nor another.

Review what I said about guilty/not guilty. You can't be (not) guilty and (not) not guilty at the same time. The only important thing is that the person doesn't believe in the existence, not that he doesn't believe in the non-existence.

4. How do you call these views?

Atheist.

5. I beg you to answer my questions, because I had already done some questions which still remain unanswered.

People attach so much emotion to the word atheist that they become irrational in their desperate need to avoid applying it to themselves. It's just a word. It means that you don't have that belief in the existence of any gods. It doesn't matter whether you have reasons to believe they don't exist, whether you've never heard of all the gods you lack belief in, whether you neither believe nor disbelieve they exist. If you don't affirmatively believe god(s) exist, then you are an atheist.