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

[David Mo]

(...)

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.

(...)
So that person is an atheist.

That person is also an atheist.

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.

Atheist.


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.

1. I absolutely agree: words are conventions.
1.1. And these conventions are useful or cause of confusions.
2. If you are interested in separating those who believe in god from those who don’t believe, you don’t need three different names for them (3.1 to 3.3 in my previous comment).
3. But you are discussing with me now and I am interested in other problem: among the people who don’t believe in gods some of them affirm that gods don’t exist (A) and others refrain from taking a decision, this is to say, they neither affirm to believe nor affirm not to believe (B) .
3.1. This is a classical problem in philosophy of religions.
3.1.1. For example, Bertrand Russell asked himself if he was A o B.
3.1.1. Russell used the word “atheist” for A and the word “agnostic” for B.
3.1.2. Because these are the words usually used in History of Philosophy.
3.2. I think that the option to not differentiate between A y B will cause some problems of understanding.
3.3. And if we ought to differentiate, it will be useful to take into account the meanings that are usually used by experts in the field.
3.3.1. For example: If we don’t do so, we will have a problem to understand what Russell is meaning when he asks himself if he is an atheist or an agnostic.
3.3.2. Or what is the difference between Protagoras and d’Holbach.
3.3.3. Etc.
4. The points from 3.1. to 3.3.3. have a relative weight. I have not any problem in using different words in this forum.
4.1. For example, gnostic atheist for A and agnostic atheist for B, or any other name you wish.
5. But I think the distinction is important.
5.1. I have not time now to explain this but the main line of my argumentation is that an agnostic (B) will be less implied in the fight against superstition than an atheist (A)
5.2. And that an agnostic (B) forwads the burden of the proof to the theists, but also to the atheists (A).
5.2.1. And in those points (particularly 5.2.) the agnostics (B) are wrong.

 

[David Mo]

Maybe this one will be better for you.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26744525ea4fd028ac.jpg[/qimg]

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.

1. I don't know, because I have not an idea of what you are meaning now with the names of this new diagram.
2. Where do you put an atheist (A) and agnostic (B) according to my words? (see my previous comment, point 3)
3. Thanks for your answer.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. I don't know, because I have not an idea of what you are meaning now with the names of this new diagram.
2. Where do you put an atheist (A) and agnostic (B) according to my words? (see my previous comment, point 3)
3. Thanks for your answer.

1. The names on the diagram are the same as before. Atheism/Theism are a measure of belief. Agnostic/Gnostic measure knowledge.

2. Atheists are the two left quadrants. Are you asking about an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?

3. Thank you for the conversation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

2. If you are interested in separating those who believe in god from those who don’t believe, you don’t need three different names for them (3.1 to 3.3 in my previous comment).

Absolutely agree. Let's use the words theist and atheist. We'll reserve the words agnostic and gnostic to refer to something other than belief.

3. But you are discussing with me now and I am interested in other problem: among the people who don’t believe in gods some of them affirm that gods don’t exist (A) and others refrain from taking a decision, this is to say, they neither affirm to believe nor affirm not to believe (B).

Sounds like atheist would be the word to describe those people. As you say, we don't need a third word.

3.1. This is a classical problem in philosophy of religions.

I think philosophers would reduce their confusion by using the correct words and that would eliminate some of the problems they encounter.

3.1.1. For example, Bertrand Russell asked himself if he was A o B.
3.1.1. Russell used the word “atheist” for A and the word “agnostic” for B.

Bertrand Russell made a mistake in thinking the two words were mutually exclusive of each other. He should have realized that those two words are used to measure two different dimensions.

3.1.2. Because these are the words usually used in History of Philosophy.

Misused, apparently.

3.2. I think that the option to not differentiate between A y B will cause some problems of understanding.

Using the word agnostic to refer to a measure of belief causes problems.

3.3. And if we ought to differentiate, it will be useful to take into account the meanings that are usually used by experts in the field.

Or, even better, by the person who coined the term - Thomas Huxley in 1869.

3.3.1. For example: If we don’t do so, we will have a problem to understand what Russell is meaning when he asks himself if he is an atheist or an agnostic.

It isn't much of a problem for people who don't care what Russell meant by his misuse of the term.

3.3.2. Or what is the difference between Protagoras and d’Holbach.
3.3.3. Etc.

Aye, there's the rub.

4. The points from 3.1. to 3.3.3. have a relative weight. I have not any problem in using different words in this forum.
4.1. For example, gnostic atheist for A and agnostic atheist for B, or any other name you wish.

Not what I wish, but what is most useful. Using the term agnostic, which is a measure of knowledge, to refer to a measure of belief isn't useful.

5. But I think the distinction is important.
5.1. I have not time now to explain this but the main line of my argumentation is that an agnostic (B) will be less implied in the fight against superstition than an atheist (A)
5.2. And that an agnostic (B) forwads the burden of the proof to the theists, but also to the atheists (A).

Why would an atheist have a burden of proof? That's the real problem, theists who invent their gods and then demand that someone who lacks belief in those made-up gods prove that they don't exist.

5.2.1. And in those points (particularly 5.2.) the agnostics (B) are wrong.

The agnostic atheists? Or that agnostic theists?

 

[David Mo]

Sounds like atheist would be the word to describe those people. As you say, we don't need a third word.

0. (I have not said that we don't need a third word. I have said that you don't need a third word but we need a third word if the problem were different. These are two differrent things).

1. I am impressed with your self-confidence. You think that you can eliminate all the philosophical tradition about atheism and agnosticism with a single change of words!
1.1. But I think the problem is with your definitions.
2. Let us see:
2.1. Your definition of atheism: “Lack of belief in gods”. See your comment #69
2.2. I accept this use of the word “atheist” in this debate.
2.3. But among the people who don’t believe in gods (that is to say “atheists”) some of them affirm that gods don’t exist (A) and others refrain from taking a decision, that is to say, they neither affirm to believe nor affirm not to believe (B).
2.4. You propose to call both them “atheists”, but this is not the question, because we are speaking of a distinction among the atheists.
2.5. The question is that they are two different views into the field of the atheists, A and B. And now, my questions:
3. Do you agree? Do you see the difference between A and B?
3.1. If affirmative: How do you call the options A and B in order to differentiate between each other?

 

[RoboTimbo]

0. (I have not said that we don't need a third word. I have said that you don't need a third word but we need a third word if the problem were different. These are two differrent things).

Nobody needs a third word to classify someone as theist or atheist. If you aren't a theist, you are an atheist by default. The amount of conviction or lack of it is irrelevant. That is a different thing which you seem determined to try to wedge in between theist and atheist.

1. I am impressed with your self-confidence. You think that you can eliminate all the philosophical tradition about atheism and agnosticism with a single change of words!
1.1. But I think the problem is with your definitions.

No, I don't think so. I think the problem is as I have previously stated.

2. Let us see:
2.1. Your definition of atheism: “Lack of belief in gods”. See your comment #69
2.2. I accept this use of the word “atheist” in this debate.
2.3. But among the people who don’t believe in gods (that is to say “atheists”) some of them affirm that gods don’t exist (A) and others refrain from taking a decision, that is to say, they neither affirm to believe nor affirm not to believe (B).

You can sub-categorize atheists if you wish. They are still atheists according to the most inclusive definition of the term.

2.4. You propose to call both them “atheists”, but this is not the question, because we are speaking of a distinction among the atheists.

Why are we speaking of categories of atheists? What is the end goal?

2.5. The question is that they are two different views into the field of the atheists, A and B. And now, my questions:
3. Do you agree? Do you see the difference between A and B?

Let's first establish that you see the difference between measuring belief (theist/atheist) and measuring knowledge (Gnosticism/agnosticism).

3.1. If affirmative: How do you call the options A and B in order to differentiate between each other?

I also distinguish between people with brown eyes and those without brown eyes. But I don't use whether they are left handed or right handed to do it.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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.

I can't imagine that you engage in this type of reasoning with other topics. You would never be able to describe anything.

I am left-handed. This fact describes which hand I use when I write with a pen. It does not, however, describe my handwriting. Is this a problem, now? Do you find the term "left-handed" inadequate? Do we need a new term to describe left-handed people with good handwriting from left-handed people with bad handwriting? What about left-handed people with good handwriting who happen to be micro-biologists from left-handed people with good handwriting who happen to not be micro-biologists? Where does this madness end?

There are various philosophical positions that tend to overlap (theism and dualism). Some of them are necessarily within the category of another (positive atheism is within atheism). Curiously, very few philosophers have trouble discussing these topics despite this fact.

 

[David Mo]

Why are we speaking of categories of atheists? What is the end goal?


Let's first establish that you see the difference between measuring belief (theist/atheist) and measuring knowledge (Gnosticism/agnosticism).

1. A debate is a game of questions and answers.
1.1. A debate also implies fair play. I answer your question and then I put other question that you will answer and then you put another question. And so on.
2. You have answered my question with a new question. (Two times at least).
2.1. This is not fair play.
3. This will be the last time I will answer your question without you had answered my previous question. I hope that you will answer my previous question hereafter.
4. My answer :
4.1. Belief: “An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Ex.; his belief in extraterrestrial life”
4.2. Knowledge: (Philosophy)."(...) justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion".
4.3. Both definitions from the Oxford dictionary on line.
4.4. My goal is clarify the use of some concepts in this debate.
5. Now, my questions:
5.1. Among the people who don’t believe in gods (that is to say “atheists”) some of them affirm that gods don’t exist (A) and others refrain from taking a decision, that is to say, they neither affirm to believe nor affirm not to believe (B).
5.1.1. Do you agree? Do you see the difference between A and B?
5.1.2. If affirmative: How do you call the options A and B in order to differentiate between each other?

 

[Leumas]

I also distinguish between people with brown eyes and those without brown eyes. But I don't use whether they are left handed or right handed to do it.

I am left-handed. This fact describes which hand I use when I write with a pen. It does not, however, describe my handwriting. Is this a problem, now? Do you find the term "left-handed" inadequate? Do we need a new term to describe left-handed people with good handwriting from left-handed people with bad handwriting? What about left-handed people with good handwriting who happen to be micro-biologists from left-handed people with good handwriting who happen to not be micro-biologists? Where does this madness end?

 

[Mojo]

What is the end goal?

In this sort of argument it's usually a tu quoque.

 

[Mojo]

While some people collect stamps, there are other people who are so opposed to stamp collecting that they like to track down rare stamps and destroy them. This shows that not collecting stamps is just as much a hobby as collecting them.

 

[Leumas]

Why are we speaking of categories of atheists? What is the end goal?

In this sort of argument it's usually a tu quoque.

Exactly!

While some people collect stamps, there are other people who are so opposed to stamp collecting that they like to track down rare stamps and destroy them. This shows that not collecting stamps is just as much a hobby as collecting them.

Exactly!

But more sinisterly as I explained in details in this post.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. A debate is a game of questions and answers.
1.1. A debate also implies fair play. I answer your question and then I put other question that you will answer and then you put another question. And so on.
2. You have answered my question with a new question. (Two times at least).
2.1. This is not fair play.

I actually have answered a few times. I suspect you don't like the answers.

3. This will be the last time I will answer your question without you had answered my previous question. I hope that you will answer my previous question hereafter.
4. My answer :
4.1. Belief: “An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Ex.; his belief in extraterrestrial life”
4.2. Knowledge: (Philosophy)."(...) justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion".
4.3. Both definitions from the Oxford dictionary on line.
4.4. My goal is clarify the use of some concepts in this debate.
5. Now, my questions:
5.1. Among the people who don’t believe in gods (that is to say “atheists”) some of them affirm that gods don’t exist (A) and others refrain from taking a decision, that is to say, they neither affirm to believe nor affirm not to believe (B).
5.1.1. Do you agree? Do you see the difference between A and B?

How can one not agree when you specify that "Here is a characteristic that is different between two subsets of the same group. Do you agree that this characteristic is different between the two?"

5.1.2. If affirmative: How do you call the options A and B in order to differentiate between each other?

This has also been answered numerous times by a few different people in this thread. Strong/weak atheists, positive/negative atheists, agnostic/gnostic atheists. Take your pick.

Do you agree that those who refrain from taking a position don't have a belief in any gods?

Do you have brown eyes or do you have (not) brown eyes?

 

[RoboTimbo]

In this sort of argument it's usually a tu quoque.

I know. I just like to make them work for it.

 

[David Mo]

This has also been answered numerous times by a few different people in this thread. Strong/weak atheists, positive/negative atheists, agnostic/gnostic atheists. Take your pick.

0. Then:
Atheists A = gnostic atheists
Atheists B= agnostic atheists
0.1. What you call “gnostic atheist” was called in History of Philosophy an “atheist”. And what you call “agnostic atheist” was called in History of Philosophy “agnostic”. You have only changed names.
0.2. I accept your terminology in this forum in order to preserve peace and progress in this debate. I hope you will appreciate the gesture.

Do you agree that those who refrain from taking a position don't have a belief in any gods?

1. I agree. Agnostics atheists haven’t any belief in gods.
2. But, agnostics atheists have a belief about gods:
2.1. Agnostics atheists believe that nothing can be said about the existence of gods. Neither that they exist nor that they don’t exist.
3. But this is not the main problem.

Here, the problem:

4. A fideist is an agnostic theist (in the definition of this forum, See comment #69).
4.1. He believes in a god at least.
4.2. He believes that his belief cannot be justified by rational argumentation, experience or similar.
4.2.1. So, he agrees with the agnostic atheist.
4.3. But he affirms that beliefs are different to knowledge. (If not better in some sense. See Pascal). (About belief and knowledge, see #4.1. and 4.2. in my comment #88).
4.4. He claims that there is no difference between a gnostic atheist and him on this point: everybody maintains beliefs.
4.5. So, his belief in some god is rationally as (in)valid as the absence of belief on gods of the atheist.
5. An agnostic atheist cannot argue against the fideist, because he speaks only about certainty or not certainty, justification and not justification, and the agnostic theist agrees with him on this point. But he cannot argue against an idea that is not based on reason, but on faith.
6. Fideist’s conclusion: theism and atheism are equally valid and rational.

7. My conclusion: if you are an atheist, you must find a reason against theism. And this position is called gnostic atheism in this forum.
7.1. Agnostic atheism is insufficient for this goal.

 

[Mojo]

0.1. What you call “gnostic atheist” was called in History of Philosophy an “atheist”. And what you call “agnostic atheist” was called in History of Philosophy “agnostic”.

Which particular History of Philosophy are you citing here? The OED, for example, certainly defines "agnostic" in the way others in this thread have defined it ("a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God" - that's quoted from the 2004 concise edition, but the full OED defines it in the same way), not in the way your History of Philosophy defines it.

 

[Mojo]

In this sort of argument it's usually a tu quoque.

Here, the problem:

4. A fideist is an agnostic theist (in the definition of this forum, See comment #69).
4.1. He believes in a god at least.
4.2. He believes that his belief cannot be justified by rational argumentation, experience or similar.
4.2.1. So, he agrees with the agnostic atheist.
4.3. But he affirms that beliefs are different to knowledge. (If not better in some sense. See Pascal). (About belief and knowledge, see #4.1. and 4.2. in my comment #88).
4.4. He claims that there is no difference between a gnostic atheist and him on this point: everybody maintains beliefs.
4.5. So, his belief in some god is rationally as (in)valid as the absence of belief on gods of the atheist.
5. An agnostic atheist cannot argue against the fideist, because he speaks only about certainty or not certainty, justification and not justification, and the agnostic theist agrees with him on this point. But he cannot argue against an idea that is not based on reason, but on faith.
6. Fideist’s conclusion: theism and atheism are equally valid and rational.

7. My conclusion: if you are an atheist, you must find a reason against theism. And this position is called gnostic atheism in this forum.
7.1. Agnostic atheism is insufficient for this goal.

 

[Mojo]

My conclusion: if you are an atheist, you must find a reason against theism.

You need a reason to believe something, but not to not believe something. Not believing is the default position, otherwise you would be obliged to believe in everything that hasn't been disproved.

 

[RoboTimbo]

0. Then:
Atheists A = gnostic atheists
Atheists B= agnostic atheists
0.1. What you call “gnostic atheist” was called in History of Philosophy an “atheist”. And what you call “agnostic atheist” was called in History of Philosophy “agnostic”. You have only changed names.
0.2. I accept your terminology in this forum in order to preserve peace and progress in this debate. I hope you will appreciate the gesture.

No, not what I call them and I haven't changed the names. I'll ask you to refer to Thomas Huxley, who coined the term, again.

If agnostic is the midpoint on the line between theist and atheist, what is the opposite of agnostic?

1. I agree. Agnostics atheists haven’t any belief in gods.
2. But, agnostics atheists have a belief about gods:
2.1. Agnostics atheists believe that nothing can be said about the existence of gods. Neither that they exist nor that they don’t exist.

No, they lack belief that any gods exist.

3. But this is not the main problem.

Here, the problem:

4. A fideist is an agnostic theist (in the definition of this forum, See comment #69).
4.1. He believes in a god at least.
4.2. He believes that his belief cannot be justified by rational argumentation, experience or similar.
4.2.1. So, he agrees with the agnostic atheist.
4.3. But he affirms that beliefs are different to knowledge. (If not better in some sense. See Pascal). (About belief and knowledge, see #4.1. and 4.2. in my comment #88).
4.4. He claims that there is no difference between a gnostic atheist and him on this point: everybody maintains beliefs.

And that's where the theist is mistaken. Lacking belief isn't the same as maintaining a belief. This is the tu quoque Mojo spoke of earlier and which everyone here saw coming from the first post.

Thank you for finally admitting that this was the goal although when I asked what the goal was a few posts back, you said that there wasn't one.

4.5. So, his belief in some god is rationally as (in)valid as the absence of belief on gods of the atheist.

Tu quoque.

5. An agnostic atheist cannot argue against the fideist, because he speaks only about certainty or not certainty, justification and not justification, and the agnostic theist agrees with him on this point. But he cannot argue against an idea that is not based on reason, but on faith.

No, based on a lack of evidence (atheist) vs. a lack of reason (theist).

6. Fideist’s conclusion: theism and atheism are equally valid and rational.

The fideist is a fool.

7. My conclusion: if you are an atheist, you must find a reason against theism. And this position is called gnostic atheism in this forum.

And this is that switching the burden of proof that was spoken of earlier. Everyone saw that coming from a mile away also.

7.1. Agnostic atheism is insufficient for this goal.

Agnostic atheism doesn't have a goal.

 

[David Mo]

Which particular History of Philosophy are you citing here? The OED, for example, certainly defines "agnostic" in the way others in this thread have defined it ("a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God" - that's quoted from the 2004 concise edition, but the full OED defines it in the same way), not in the way your History of Philosophy defines it.

Any "particular" History of Philosophy.

Oxford dictionary: Agnostic: “A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Agnosticism: “Agnosticism is the philosophical view that neither affirms that God exists nor affirms that God does not exist”. (Posted by myself comment #52)

I don’t see any difference.