semantics, religion, comparative-religionsIt seems that to say that you either believe in the nonexistence of some thing “X”, or do not believe in the existence of some thing “X”, that you need to have a good idea of what X is in order for these claims to make sense. This seems to hold no matter what X is. If I lack belief in the existence of blickets, you would ask what I mean by blickets, and then upon analyzing that definition, you would respond in one way or another. Without that explanation “blicket” is an empty word.
Then does atheism require defining the kind of thing that a god would be in order to not believe in it or believe in its not existing? In the same way, without such a definition is “God” equivalent to “blicket”? Then, what definition of god do most atheists agree on? Or alternatively put - what are the features that a god would have? Is our ability to discuss this dependent upon the more uniform definition of “God” present in a Christian heavy Western society?
Rule #1 The theist must define god.
If the theist does not define god, the atheist can do nothing more than say, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
And it’s no good defining the deity as (for example) “the god of the bible” because that is far too vague.
Interestingly, during this defining process, most believers will eventually claim that god is beyond the understanding of mere humans. “Ineffable” is the term they use.
So no need to accept or reject…
Then does atheism require defining the kind of thing that a god would be in order to not believe in it or believe in its not existing? In the same way, without such a definition is “God” equvialent to “blicket”?
An atheist that arrived to atheism through scientific skepticism wouldn’t need to define a god before rejecting it. Such an atheist could (or would) decide to reject the existence of anything whose existence is not supported by scientific evidence.
By taking this position, he would not need to know what a blicket is to reject it. You could ask him if he believe in the existence of blickets, he would ask you if their existence is supported by scientific evidence, and if you answer by the negative then he could reject the existence of blickets without ever needing you or him to define what a blicket is.
Or alternatively put - what are the features that a god would have?
It’s extremely hard to come with a definition of god that encompass all being that have been considered gods yet does not include other supernatural being like superheroes.
The best I can come up with is “a supernatural being possessing absolute control over some aspect of the universe, or who is the personification of a force or of an inanimate object.” However, even then, I would not be surprised to see a god escaping that definition or a non-god being included.
This question reveals why the word "atheism" isn't particularly descriptive either. After all, many Buddhists are technically atheists.
But in the Western world, when educated people say "atheist" what they usually mean is metaphysical naturalist - i.e. they believe nothing exists apart from understandable physical forces that can be modeled mathematically.
With that definition in mind, it becomes clear why atheists reject common notions of God even without a clear definition of "God": most common notions of God/gods include at least the idea that such beings are supernatural agents that are not necessarily subject to physical laws.
Of course not. Do you need to define every possible fairy tale in order to know that the entire class of fairy tales is mythology? No, you don’t. In fact, the opposite is true. In order for any entity to pass from the category of myth/story/lie, it must meet a test of basic reality, IE it must meet some form of test of existence.
Gods do not meet this test. At best, they meet the measure of ‘socially enforced reality’ as opposed to actual reality. A social reality is a reality like ‘Green means GO’ - No, it actually does not mean GO, but if you try to assert that at rush hour you’re likely to be run over. That’s a social reality. Any god is at best a social reality.
To meet the test of objective reality, it (the entity) must exist in distance time and form. If neither the entity or evidence of the entity exists in distance, time and form, then its existence is moot.
You can probably say that there are as many definitions of god as there are people on earth. They all have in common the “supernatural creator of universe” in mind.
Atheists don’t need to define the concept of god any further, because all of them are outside of what atheists find plausible.
Atheism is a person’s default state. There is no need to define that in which you do not believe, because the burden of definition (just like the burden of proof) always lies with the believer. Though in a more mundane sense, a definition does need to exist for the atheist to make a specific rejection. After all, if a man never opens his mouth, you can’t know whether he’s a fool or a sage, and how can you reply to the unsaid?
I have never understood how is it even possible to define something precisely. I am afraid that once you start defining, you will never get anything done. So I would propose to reject fuzzy, badly defined things with equal amount of fuzziness. “I kinda somewhat reject God-like stuff” should be your mantra.
I think yes, you really do need to have a definition of God in order to label yourself an atheist. When people ask me if I am an atheist, I tend to respond with “depends on how you define God.” I guess in a sense that is throwing it back in their court, but I don’t think it makes sense to label myself a non-believer without being clear about exactly what it is that I disbelieve in. After all, the concept of atheism really doesn’t exist without a concept of God in which to reject – and there are lots of concepts of God out there (especially here in wonderfully liberal San Francisco, where “traditional theists” are rather hard to come by).
I have found that many people define God in a way that is so metaphorical, that I can’t really say “I don’t believe in that” any more than I can say “I don’t believe in Mother Nature”. Even if defined as “an imaginary being to which people direct prayers and thanks,” it doesn’t really make sense to say one doesn’t believe in it, given that, by definition, the being is imaginary.
So yeah, to make a statement on whether or not you believe in something, I think it is intellectually dishonest to do so without being clear about what it is you are talking about. Otherwise, don’t say “atheist” – say ““physicalist,” “naturalist,” “materialist,” or the like.
Actually, my preferred (i.e. “most accurate”) response when someone asks if I am atheist, agnostic, or a believer is this: “the more God is seen as being anthropomorphic/biomorphic – such as having desires, emotions, and the ability to think and care about things – the less likely I think it is that such a being exists.” In other words, my answer is less a boolean “yes/no” answer, and more of a curve plotting two variables. Too complicated? So be it.
I think it’s a bad idea for atheists to do the defining.
Of course there are conceptions of gods that we are all familiar with. The person with the three omni qualities that writes moral codes, authors the universe e.t.c. But there are conceptions of gods that are often aligned with things that actually manifest in reality in order to make them more believeable e.g. “God is love” or “God is the ground of all being”.
I think Matt Dillahunty from http://www.atheist-experience.com has the best approach to this; He asks his live callers what they believe an why they believe it.
It is not only dangerous strawmanning and bad tactics, it is also deeply disingenuous for an anti-apologist to predefine what a god is, it looks very closed minded.
If an atheist has a taste for debate and a genuine interest for what is or might be true about the world, they should be open to conceptions of gods as they are defined. Fallacies and inconsistencies are easy to spot in a god’s definition but it is not an atheist’s prerogative to come armed with them before the debate begins.
Of course you must have some notion of a concept before rationally commenting on it, but the definition need not be thorough. For example, I know many theists each of whom defines their god in a slightly different way, but these details are irrelevant, since any theory of a centralized, omnipotent, and all-powerful cosmic intelligence faces seeming insurmountable technical hurdles.
Reducing a god’s power would, I think, make it more of a possibility, but a neutered god wouldn’t satisfy the notion of “God”. And it’s important to remember that the question of God and the possibility of a god-like entity are entirely different questions. Theists, for the most part, argue for a specific conceptualization. It’s the difference between one person who maintains doubts about men living within a dark jungle, and another who says that it doubtlessly contains Tarzan.
No. A person can operate in the world without ever defining God, or including the notion as a hypothesis. We are born without “specific god belief.” Assuming a person is not indoctrinated into it, and is then confronted with the assertion of a G(g)od, that person has merely to say, “Demonstrate to me what this thing is that your are positing… define it and show me evidence of it, and explain how my explanatory framework of the world is weaker without it.”
The atheist may then, based on lack of evidence or weakness of the “hypothesis” reject the god being proposed.
It really is simple: To the believer one must say, “Clarify the truth claim you are asserting… narrow it, make it tangible, give it some meaning. ‘Do you believe in God’ is meaningless, and asks the responder to commit to the unstated, nebulous concepts in the head of the asker. Demonstrate what you mean, clearly, and then we can talk about those narrow, specific claims/definitions.”
No, you don’t need to define something in order not to believe in it. You need to look at it the other way around, meaning that you need to be able to define something in order to believe in it. From this it follows that you can’t believe in things you can’t define and by default do not believe in things that are not defined.
Needless to say, you can also not believe in things you can define, but that was not your question.
logically speaking:
If there is no sense data for a thing, [God], then that thing is by default sense-less or non-sensical. To base one’s life around nonsense appears to be senseless, and rejecting [God] on that lack of sense data seems the only sensible thing.
No, you don’t need to define god(s) in order to lack belief in them.
Most people wouldn’t be able to come up with a useful definition. You don’t need to define what a steak is, to eat it up. Just eat it. :)
The singing in the church is lame, the people are old and dull, the priest is boring - well - that’s enough! You may even refuse religious believes if you never tried them. You’re not obliged to be a theist and you don’t need to excuse yourself for being an atheist. You don’t have to prove serious reasons; you may be an atheist because of the color green and Number 9.
Of course you are free to participate in discussions, and if you like it, come up with a definition. Change it if you will. Use contradictious definitions (it won’t hurt the believers - they are used to this stuff).
You needn’t try to make the believers sceptic. You can make fun of them. Why not? Live is too short to stay serious all the time.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.