Polite atheism. Is it possible?

[lucaspa]

Should've clarified that since you want to be very nitpicky about the type of negative one cannot prove. Proving there is not an elephant in my closet is a negative one can prove, but to prove the statement "There is no God" would be logically impossible, since it is making a statement covering absolute and transcendent boundaries.

Well, you haven't thought on why you can prove there isn't an elephant in your closet. In this case it's not deductive logic, but rather that we can search the entire search space of the closet.

Remember, theists over the centuries have "proved", to their satisfaction, that many proposed deities do not exist. So it's not impossible to disprove deities. You need to ask yourself: how did they do that? The answer is that deity is not completely transcendent. There are certain tasks that are essential to deity for it to be deity. If all those tasks can be shown to be done by something else, then deity is falsified. Like how we falsify Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

If evidence is obtained, the default position remains atheism until an accurate definition of theism can be presented, which it hasn't, primarily because of the existence of pantheism and panentheism contradicting the alleged commonalities that would otherwise have existed between monotheists and polytheists.

Pantheism and panentheism are different things from theism. That's why you think they "contradict". You are trying to put grapefruit and oranges in with apples. Just because they have "theism" in the words does not mean they are theism. After all, the "pan" and "panen" are there to let us know that these words describe something different than theism. This is trying to stack the deck.

To say that you see evidence and must conclude theism is absurd, since atheism doesn't by necessity deny impersonal/nonpersonal transcendence as an explanation.

Apples and oranges again. What you are doing is offering an alternative hypothesis to explain the evidence as a means of denying the evidence. That is, someone has personal experience of deity. That evidence convinces them that theism is correct. Now, the atheist looks at that and says "impersonal/nonpersonal transcendence". However, the atheist does that because he does not have the experience. That is, he lacks the evidence. The atheist cannot know that the particular experience is nonpersonal/impersonal. The experience happens to one person, is not shared, and therefore the atheist has no independent basis to say "impersonal/nonpersonal". It's just a way to deny the evidence.

It is more common to suggest all atheists are pure metaphysical naturalists, which isn't necessarily true

If you are not a metaphysical naturalist, you can't be an atheist. See my previous post.

I'm saying that

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The semantic game doesn't work. Let's take this out of the atheism and theism discussion and show you what I mean.

Are you a fan of any sports team? Pick your favorite team. Call it team A. Now, I tell you "I lack belief that team A will win the championship this year." You are going to hear that as the belief that team A will not win the championship, which it is.

Or try politics. Say "I lack belief that we should be fighting in Afghanistan." That means "I do not believe we should be fighting in Afghanistan."



You can't seriously mean this. Since "bald" is the lack of hair, of course it can't mean a hair color. You need to compare bald to hair, not a color. So yes, bald is a positive statement: that person has no hair on his head.

Also, you haven't thought much about atheism. Atheism, to be atheism, must make some positive belief statements about ultimate reality.

Take this statement:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

So, to be an atheist, you must disagree with this. But in doing so, you also must make the positive belief statement that natural processes happen on their own. There is no scientific data to back that statement; it's faith.



So-called "weak" atheism is either agnosticism or someone trying to avoid admitting that they have a belief system. The "lack of belief" is either the truly neutral position of agnosticism or, like I have shown, it is semantically improper or lack of thought about the position. Weak atheism must reduce to either agnosticism or strong atheism.

No one will make such a hubbub if you say you don't believe sports teams will win or commonly if you don't believe we should be at war. it's when God is involved that people become flustered that it is possible to not believe in God, though not necessarily insist that God does not exist (which is a form of general atheism/nontheism, not identical with atheism itself)

Atheism as a belief statement is little more than I do not believe in God, it does not imply the person makes an absolute statement regarding God, since the vast majority of atheists would be considered skeptics. And concerning agnosticism, Huxley's term was moreso an attempt to make skepticism more overarching, not unlike Pyrrhonism in some regards. But agnostics can be theists in that they say we cannot know God, but only experience and believe in it, which is not identical to knowing by necessity. In short, an agnostic theist only differs with an agnostic atheist in regards to their beleif in God, the theist saying faith is sufficient, an atheist saying their faith is more directed towards another thing, if they accept a Humean position that faith is necessary to believe in basic truths like physical objects, etc.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well, you haven't thought on why you can prove there isn't an elephant in your closet. In this case it's not deductive logic, but rather that we can search the entire search space of the closet.

Remember, theists over the centuries have "proved", to their satisfaction, that many proposed deities do not exist. So it's not impossible to disprove deities. You need to ask yourself: how did they do that? The answer is that deity is not completely transcendent. There are certain tasks that are essential to deity for it to be deity. If all those tasks can be shown to be done by something else, then deity is falsified. Like how we falsify Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.



Pantheism and panentheism are different things from theism. That's why you think they "contradict". You are trying to put grapefruit and oranges in with apples. Just because they have "theism" in the words does not mean they are theism. After all, the "pan" and "panen" are there to let us know that these words describe something different than theism. This is trying to stack the deck.



Apples and oranges again. What you are doing is offering an alternative hypothesis to explain the evidence as a means of denying the evidence. That is, someone has personal experience of deity. That evidence convinces them that theism is correct. Now, the atheist looks at that and says "impersonal/nonpersonal transcendence". However, the atheist does that because he does not have the experience. That is, he lacks the evidence. The atheist cannot know that the particular experience is nonpersonal/impersonal. The experience happens to one person, is not shared, and therefore the atheist has no independent basis to say "impersonal/nonpersonal". It's just a way to deny the evidence.



If you are not a metaphysical naturalist, you can't be an atheist. See my previous post.

I'm saying that

To disprove or prove a deity's existence would seem to imply it was never a deity to begin with, but simply superstition or generally material or natural to begin with and no longer exists.

Pantheism and panentheism are potentially argued to be different only in degree, not in nature from theism, but this again depends crucially on how you define the word theos in theism. If it is a personal entity, pantheism cannot be theism in the general sense of the use of the word, unless you define theos to the point that you could define a rock as God.

It's not always a matter of denying evidence, but of denying one interpretation as valid. I can interpret alleged healings as something natural and not deny the evidence in front of me that the person has been healed from cancer. atheists can take the evidence you see for God and see that the universe is indeed awe inspiring, that doesn't mean they must accept the evidence you see as proving the God you believe in.

This assumes atheist and metaphysical naturalist are exactly identical when that is questionable by virtue of the ill defined term of theism, not to mention the very existence of Christian materialism appearing to contradict the allegation that all metaphysical naturalists must be atheists at least in part. Atheism by itself is simply a belief regarding God's existence, it does not imply anything more about one's metaphysics, ethics, ontology or other aspects of their philosophy or worldview. There are as many different atheists as there are theists, if you will

 

[chilehed]

..."My greatest despair is that such good people could believe such nonsense."...

That sounds a lot like what I feel about the (self-proclaimed) atheists I know, but I don't find it cause for despair.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

That sounds a lot like what I feel about the (self-proclaimed) atheists I know, but I don't find it cause for despair.

The possibility for change exists on both sides. The despair for the atheist/nontheist falls on the clinging to an exceptional leap of faith beyond the necessary leap we all make that the theist makes in positing a creator God.

And to note in my continued consideration of the terms, I can say this much; atheists differ as much from each other as theists do from each other

 

[razeontherock]

I do believe you have seen the light!

Atheism by itself is simply a belief regarding God's existence,

That's one in the "w" column for Christians, via lucaspa. Was there ever any doubt?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

EDIT Additions:

I somehow doubt atheism can be a normative term, since it doesn't suggest one has to outright reject belief in God or reject God absolutely in any sense beyond the skeptical approach. As one atheist noted in analyzing the term a bit, atheism is more properly a descriptive term than a normative/prescriptive one, since there's no dogma or teachings associated with disbelief in God innately.

My primary doubt (if I agree with you on that principle, which I'm skeptical on) is regarding the degree to which the belief is held. One can believe there is no God in at least two to three ways. There is of course the common misconception that all atheists believe there is no God absolutely without question. But that would be closer to what has been termed contratheism or antitheism in a certain sense.

There are people that remain skeptical (or agnostic in the epistemological sense as opposed to the methodological sense of Pyrrhonism) of God, but may eventually accept the existence of God or gods eventually.

And then there are people that lack a belief in God or gods because they don't feel it has any importance once way or the other, apatheists.

There are also transtheists who want to transcend the notion of belief in "God" or disbelief in "God", but they are especially rare and seem to be more common with theologians (Paul Tillich for instance)

 

[BrianOnEarth]

My dictionary says that atheism is the belief that no God exists. I see no legitimate reason to reinvent the word. If one wants to adopt a label expressing ones skepticism about the existence of God then there are plenty of nouns to choose from.

I think the process a person deploys to decide what to believe is more interesting than what they end up believing. Maybe some terminologies here would shine a light. Empiricist or fantasist. How does a person compensate for their own emotional bias? What about environment bias? How does a person judge how accurate facts are? Are they just guessing/wishful thinking?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

My dictionary says that atheism is the belief that no God exists. I see no legitimate reason to reinvent the word. If one wants to adopt a label expressing ones skepticism about the existence of God then there are plenty of nouns to choose from.

I think the process a person deploys to decide what to believe is more interesting than what they end up believing. Maybe some terminologies here would shine a light. Empiricist or fantasist. How does a person compensate for their own emotional bias? What about environment bias? How does a person judge how accurate facts are? Are they just guessing/wishful thinking?

Various dictionaries have varying definitions and the primary definition isn't always correct by context. Atheism as a term can be applied to all systems that don't have god belief or it could potentially be applied to a particular group of people lacking a god belief that have some other unifying idea regarding the degree to which they disbelieve or why they disbelieve.

Atheists don't claim to be perfect and anyone who does is probably being self deceptive or intellectually dishonest. An atheist tends to be a person that shares many ethical impulses and valued things: family, fidelity, etc. The only difference is the perspective they derive those from. And even that shouldn't be the end standard for determining unquestioningly if that perspective is mistaken. The Socratic notion of truth rests on the idea of a truthful perspective being able to be adequately defended against dialectical questions, etc. I don't doubt both atheists and theists of all stripes could see virtue in this form of ascertaining truth and we can be polite in debating, even if we do find things we fundamentally disagree on. And I hope I am coming across as at least an atheist attempting to be polite.

 

[razeontherock]

Better yet, I think you affirmatively answered the question the thread title poses (LOL)

I do think it removes confusion to simply use dictionary terms like "atheist = does not believe in God." Still, there's a valid point about not stereotyping individuals, and that certainly applies to all believers as well.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

A good point, and I don't think I've been anything but fair minded in assessing Christianity as a complex and diverse faith/belief system. And on the simple dictionary, it varies a bit and if one is interested I can PM the definitions I've found from 6 different dictionaries online, including the OED

 

[chilehed]

The possibility for change exists on both sides. The despair for the atheist/nontheist falls on the clinging to an exceptional leap of faith beyond the necessary leap we all make that the theist makes in positing a creator God...

There's nothing exceptional about the Christian's leap of faith - it merely has God as its object. Other than that it's not substantively different than the leap of faith everyone makes in their other lovers or closest friends.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There's nothing exceptional about the Christian's leap of faith - it merely has God as its object. Other than that it's not substantively different than the leap of faith everyone makes in their other lovers or closest friends.

There are degrees of leaps we make, I don't disagree there. Believing in physical objects, causality, time and space, are all almost innate to our beliefs even from childhood. But even positing something as basic as a creator that is limited in the universe in some way is a leap beyond our basic beliefs. Trusting in humans is not the same as trusting in God. Again, I would include trusting and believing we love and trust our friends, family and lovers as a basic belief, similar to the others I listed. But God is something less than innate, more primarily taught to a person over time and evolving over time. Therefore it is quite substantively different by nature and accident

 

[lucaspa]

A good point, and I don't think I've been anything but fair minded in assessing Christianity as a complex and diverse faith/belief system. And on the simple dictionary, it varies a bit and if one is interested I can PM the definitions I've found from 6 different dictionaries online, including the OED

You don't need the "definitions". All you need do is look at the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. Those people who agree with those statements of belief are Christian.

 

[lucaspa]

I do believe you have seen the light!




That's one in the "w" column for Christians, via lucaspa. Was there ever any doubt?

LOL! By George, I do think ToHoldNothing has figured it out!

 

[talitha]

I honestly feel like an adult talking to a kid who still believes in Santa.....
I don't want to, but I feel more enlightened than religious people. I feel like I'm in a superior position, and it's a bit embarrassing....

I see this is an old thread, but I haven't come across it before..... I just wanted to say that it's refreshing to find an atheist who admits this. Most want to claim that they are tolerant, blah blah..... thanks for this post.

tal

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You don't need the "definitions". All you need do is look at the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. Those people who agree with those statements of belief are Christian.

2 things. I wasn't asking for definitions of Christian, I was saying I could PM a user the definitions I had found for atheism. It might've been unclear that I was noting my definitions that I was PMing were about atheism. I still haven't looked up dictionary definitions of Christianity and I doubt the Nicene Creed is necessarily the end standard for even Webster's original definition in 1913

And secondly, the Nicene and Apostle's Creed are commonly used as standards for defining Christianity, but evidently they don't work as classifying everything that has Christian nature in it, including "Mormonism", Christian Science, etc. They may not believe exactly what the creeds specify, but the central nature of Jesus and his involvement in the lives of the believers of him still stands out to distinguish it from Judaism and Islam where he is viewed as important in a prophetic sense, not so much in a salvationary sense.

 

[lucaspa]

There are degrees of leaps we make, I don't disagree there. Believing in physical objects, causality, time and space, are all almost innate to our beliefs even from childhood.
But even positing something as basic as a creator that is limited in the universe in some way is a leap beyond our basic beliefs.

OK, on any search for truth you must believe some things that you may never prove. The basic beliefs seem to be:
1. I exist.
2. I am sane.

The second is needed to trust your sense impressions, which are the evidence that leads you to "belief" in physicaly objects, causality, time, and space. ALL evidence is ultimately what we sense. What we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and feel emotionally. These are called "personal experiences".

It is from these sense impressions that belief in deity arose. It came orginally from experiences of people that they concluded were from deity.

Now, "positing something as basic as a creator that is limited in the universe" is really no different than positing atoms or anything else in science. We have the observations that 1) the universe exists and 2) that it has this particular order rather than some other order. How to explain these observations.

One hypothesis is: deity created it and chose to give the universe the order it has. This is no different than observing how pressure and volume of gasses vary and positing very small invisible hard balls that are bouncing against the sides of the chamber.

Trusting in humans is not the same as trusting in God.

Trusting God is different than positing its existence. You have to stop and aks: trust it to do what? After all, to say "trusting in humans" means we are trusting in something other than their existence. We are trusting their behavior: honesty, peacefulness, etc.

If you look at the OT, a major theme is God earning the trust of the Hebrews. Scripture again and again gives reasons why the Hebrews should trust Yahweh: freeing them from Egypt, settling them in Canaan, protecting them from enemies, etc. It is emphasized again and again that God's promises are kept.

But God is something less than innate, more primarily taught to a person over time and evolving over time. Therefore it is quite substantively different by nature and accident

Welcome to atheist dogma #4. It's the idea that people only believe in deity because they are told (taught) to by others. Left to themselves, the dogma runs, people would be atheists. This ignores the evidence that millions upon millions of people over the centuries report personal experience of deity. This is not something they are taught.

As to "innate", maybe infants all have personal experience of deity and it is innate in them to be believers. Maybe it is atheism that is alien and needs to be taught.

 

[lucaspa]

2 things. I wasn't asking for definitions of Christian, I was saying I could PM a user the definitions I had found for atheism.

My apologies. In the context of the post, the only thing you had referenced was Christianity, so when you said "I can PM the definitions" it looked like you meant definitions of Christianity.

I still haven't looked up dictionary definitions of Christianity and I doubt the Nicene Creed is necessarily the end standard for even Webster's original definition in 1913

Webster's here may not be the best. As it happens, Merriam-Webster online says:
"1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies"

See the "professed"? What do all these "profess"? The Nicene Creed.

And secondly, the Nicene and Apostle's Creed are commonly used as standards for defining Christianity, but evidently they don't work as classifying everything that has Christian nature in it, including "Mormonism", Christian Science, etc.

What is "Christian nature"? It is possible to look upon Jesus Christ as Savior and/or Messiah -- what you call "Christian nature" -- but that is not sufficient to be Christian. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Christianity is also a particular Christology -- or belief about the nature of Jesus. The religions you mention differ from that Christology and, therefore, are not Christian.

 

[lucaspa]

I see this is an old thread, but I haven't come across it before..... I just wanted to say that it's refreshing to find an atheist who admits this. Most want to claim that they are tolerant, blah blah..... thanks for this post.
tal

Atheists do have a tendency to try to portray atheism as having more epistemological value that theism, don't they? It therefore makes me very amused when atheistic arguments turn out to be even more irrational and anti-science as some theistic arguments.