Philosophy Now Forum

Stephen Anderson sternly judges a cause célèbre.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Atheism_on_Trial

There's a lot wrong in the piece, but I ain't gettin' paid to dissect it, and my time is precious, so, I'll focus on the two bits that a’grieve me most...


“I really, really, really strongly don’t think there is any God, because I’ve seen no evidence anywhere near sufficient to make me think there is one.”

That sums up my own view...am I atheist? Agnostic? Just 'unbeliever'?

Don't know or care anymore...seems to me, as I've said elsewhere, folks are fixating more and more on the placeholders and less and less on what the placeholders stand for...where does this impulse come from? This queer desire to cram the wild (the phenomenon) into a box (the placeholder)?

Flummoxing and irksome, it is.

#

But the savvy atheist is going to detect the problem: as a personal declaration, it fails to bind anyone else.

I know a great many atheists see it as duty to rip the blinders from the eyes of believers and I don't get 'why".

Seems to me: there's only two reasons for the atheist to muck about with another man's head (no matter how wrong that head may be):

1-That (potentially) wrong-headed body is tryin' hard to make the atheist walk his believing road (by way of the stick). In such a case the atheist is justified in self-defending. But if the wrong-headed is goin' about his business and leaving the atheist to his, then the atheist should return the favor.

2-The atheist is profoundly insecure in his position and believes the philosophical destruction of the believer validates his atheism.

Seems to me: if you don't believe, then you don't believe and it shouldn't matter to you what the other guys thinks (unless, as noted in 1 above, the believer takes it upon himself to force his views [in such cases, the atheist should feel free to try to kick ass]).

#

Why then, we might ask, is atheism so popular?

Is atheism popular? I see no evidence of this.

Seems to me: most folks don't give a flip one way or another.

In fact: folks seem to care so little, prominent atheists have to make stinks (write overtly anti-god books, give anti-god speeches, etc.) just to get noticed.


Atheism on Trial: a lotta to-do about nuthin'

You wrote a whole post on Atheists, and yet you get some very basic definitions wrong.

Atheism, is a conclusion that no god exists, not a statement of absolute truth.

Agnostic is a statement of knowledge, which I believe you mentioned, then used it in different context.

So the Atheism you speak of where it is a statement of fact and knowledge would be Gnostic Atheism which is very rare. Most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists since the majority of god belief defines their god in a way that makes it impossible to test in a natural setting. This means "I don't know for sure" applies to the Atheistic statement.

Most religions are Gnostic Theism, since they state for a fact that their particular god exists. Yet those same religions are Atheistic about every other religion in the world. There is the rare case of Agnostic Thesim, and usually those people are deistic as opposed to following one of the main stream religions.

For the most part, when you say Agnostic, it will be assumed you mean Agnostic Athiest, because if you do not believe in a god, you are an Atheist, regardless if you know for sure or not.

henry quirk wrote:There's a lot wrong in the piece, but I ain't gettin' paid to dissect it, and my time is precious, so, I'll focus on the two bits that a’grieve me most...


“I really, really, really strongly don’t think there is any God, because I’ve seen no evidence anywhere near sufficient to make me think there is one.”

That sums up my own view...am I atheist? Agnostic? Just 'unbeliever'?

Don't know or care anymore...seems to me, as I've said elsewhere, folks are fixating more and more on the placeholders and less and less on what the placeholders stand for...where does this impulse come from? This queer desire to cram the wild (the phenomenon) into a box (the placeholder)?

Flummoxing and irksome, it is.

#

But the savvy atheist is going to detect the problem: as a personal declaration, it fails to bind anyone else.

I know a great many atheists see it as duty to rip the blinders from the eyes of believers and I don't get 'why".

Seems to me: there's only two reasons for the atheist to muck about with another man's head (no matter how wrong that head may be):

1-That (potentially) wrong-headed body is tryin' hard to make the atheist walk his believing road (by way of the stick). In such a case the atheist is justified in self-defending. But if the wrong-headed is goin' about his business and leaving the atheist to his, then the atheist should return the favor.

2-The atheist is profoundly insecure in his position and believes the philosophical destruction of the believer validates his atheism.

Seems to me: if you don't believe, then you don't believe and it shouldn't matter to you what the other guys thinks (unless, as noted in 1 above, the believer takes it upon himself to force his views [in such cases, the atheist should feel free to try to kick ass]).

#

Why then, we might ask, is atheism so popular?

Is atheism popular? I see no evidence of this.

Seems to me: most folks don't give a flip one way or another.

In fact: folks seem to care so little, prominent atheists have to make stinks (write overtly anti-god books, give anti-god speeches, etc.) just to get noticed.


Atheism on Trial: a lotta to-do about nuthin'

It's striking how much I agree with you on this issue - i.e. reading the post, I could have written the first three quarters. I would disagree a bit on the assessment that atheism isn't popular. This ties in with what you say about labels. It's silly when people go on and on about what 'atheism' means as opposed to other 'theisms,' but some people really get into that stuff. Those same people, I think, like being part of something - whether it's politics or sports teams, etc.. So a lot of them feel the need to belong to a specific group called 'atheists' so that their allegiance is clear cut and they can be part of the team. Not that it affects me, but this trend is only hurting the cause of atheism (if there is such a 'cause') as these people are really annoying.

Yeah, tribalism is a powerful impulse.

Strength in numbers and all that crap.

Just another wonderful feature of the human psyche I find 'enchanting'...

Philosophy Now wrote:Stephen Anderson sternly judges a cause célèbre.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Atheism_on_Trial

First build your straw man, then set light to it.

This is possibly the most disappointing article I have ever read in PN. Boring, fallacious and predictable.

Disappointing and fallacious to say the least (keeping it nice). To borrow from the late Christopher Hitchens, it appears Stephen Anderson "has not read any of the arguments against his own position". It may cause some passive readers to think twice, but anyone with the ability to think critically will immediately see the flawed reasoning and be unmoved.

This was nothing more than a complete strawman argument, that reflects the most basic or willful misunderstanding of the what it means to be an atheist or an agnostic.
Let's start with your blatant and incorrect recreation of what atheism means.
Atheism does claim that god(s) is impossible. It makes no affirmative claims at all. It is the simple position of non-belief. Atheism is no more a knowledge claim than theism - a term you also got wrong.
Theism does not claim knowledge of god. Theism is the BELIEF there is a god. Atheism is the absence of such belief. Nothing more.
These are basic, rudimentary terms we are discussing here. To try and reinvent what these long-settled definitions mean to suite your clearly, albeit, thinly veiled theistic views is disheartening to see in a publication that holds itself out to "philosophical."
Atheism does claim there is evidence against god. Atheist simply don't find the evidence presented for a god to be compelling or intelligible. But neither of these positions says that god cannot exist. It simply means the evidence you present is insufficient to justify belief.
And according to your own reasoning about evidence, theism is also an unjustifiable position. Because if any evidence pertaining to god is so vacuous and beyond our understanding to be usable, so would it be for the theistic position. If atheist cannot use such evidence against god, then theist cannot use such evidence for god. Any argument to contrary would be special pleading.

This was a mistrial.

Well this article was bad enough it actually motivated me to register. I'm going to skip speculating what parallel universe the author is writing this from where atheism has seized control of the education system and the media and enjoys an easy place in society (is someone confusing atheism with secularism perhaps?) and the laughable attempt to lay claim to an act of bravery in championing the position of a very large majority of the nation's and the world's population... and just dive into the meat of things.

To begin with, we could consider a basic definition. ‘Atheism’ is clearly ‘a-’ plus ‘theism’. Theism is from the Greek for God (or gods), of course; and the ‘a-’ prefix is the Greek negation of whatever it’s prefixing. Thus atheism means simply ‘no God’. It claims there exists no kind of god.

One wonders how this got published in a philosophy magazine.

Theism, of course, denotes the possession of a *belief* in the existence of a God.

A-theism is, conversely, the lack of that belief. While some atheists may extend that to a positive declaration that there definitely are not any gods the defining characteristic of an atheist is that they simply do not possess a belief in the existence of any deities. As for the authors claim that his insistence on using the "strongest form" of atheism is in the interests of charity, much amusement was had by all who read that I'm sure. It is a transparent attempt to latch onto the single most strenuously defined least charitable subset of atheism which it is easiest to engage in a shifting of the burden of proof to.

As for this:

Firstly, they are bound to realize that there is a perfectly good name for anyone who wants to opt for a less-than-firm stand on the question of the existence of a Supreme Being: they’re called ‘agnostics’.

I will defer to the man who invented the term agnostic. Thomas Huxley.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=agnostic

agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known"

That bolded bit on the end matters. Agnosticism is not an "I dunno" and a shoulder shrug. It is not simply taking the more wishy-washy stance on God's existence. It is the philosophical position that due to the manner in which deity is defined (supernatural, superseding physical laws,etc...) certain knowledge of whether such an entity exists is UNATTAINABLE. Not "I don't know" but "nobody CAN know".

To recycle the author's own turn of phrase, one is bound to realize that there is already a perfectly good name for anyone who simply says they do not know something: they're called "ignorant". And agnosticism is not simply a synonym for ignorance.

It also does not address the topic of belief in the existence of God. Not being able to know for certain whether God does or does not exist is a completely independent consideration from whether one believes God does or does not exist.

I am an agnostic. I recognize that due to the claimed properties of God the claim that such an entity exists can never be conclusively tested. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. (grounds, on it's own, for rejecting that hypothesis btw)

I am an atheist. I do not believe such an entity actually exists, as no evidence or argument has ever been presented to me to compel me to adopt such a belief.

I also know many an agnostic theist. They similarly recognize their position can never be proven, certain knowledge of whether their deity exists will never be attained, but they believe such an entity does exist.

But no matter how many people who do not understand the proper meaning of the word agnostic claim to be so on the internet, one cannot be an agnostic as an alternative to being an atheist or a theist. Saying "I'm not an atheist/theist, I'm an agnostic" is akin to saying "I'm not an atheist/theist, I'm an accountant". The one has no bearing on the other.

Now while I expect the average denizen of the internet to get that definition wrong, as it is an incredibly common error, I expect better from an article appearing in "Philosophy Now". (And please do not point me at a dictionary. I am entirely aware that one of the entries next to the word will be the wrong one, dictionaries reflect popular usage and the wrong usage of that particular term is amazingly popular)


Moving on...

Let me illustrate. I have never been to Denmark. Call me, if you will, a ‘Denmark-agnostic.’ I have seen brochures that show a pretty country; but we all know about Photoshop fakery, so I remain doubtful. I’ve eaten some nice cheese that purported to be from Denmark, but I don’t know how far one can trust the word of cheese. My friends claim to have visited Denmark, and they report having a lot of fun. I have even been told that my ancient ancestors may well have hailed from thence. Still, I have no first-hand evidence that any of this is true.

Should I declare against the existence of Denmark until further notice? Of course that is silly.

Indeed, it would be quite silly. Let us list some of the reasons why it would be silly.

1. The existence of Denmark is a fairly mundane claim. It violates no laws of physics, the probability of there being a landmass with a bunch of people living on it at that location in Europe is hardly something anyone would have any reasons to lay any bets against.
2. In order to maintain the claims of millions of people that such a place does exist and has been personally visited when that was not the case a massive and sustained conspiracy would have to be perpetuated. The faking of unimaginable amounts of photographic and visual evidence, satellite imagery, the diverting of any and all people who were not in on the conspiracy from ever visiting this place that did not actually exist and finding out it wasn't there... all without the truth leaking out. A mind boggling undertaking. In fact so mind boggling that any claim it is occurring represents the truly fantastical assertion that would require extraordinary supporting evidence to be considered credible.
3. There is no apparent motivation for perpetuating such a stupendous falsehood.


Let us compare and contrast with the claim that God exists.


1. The existence of a universe creating supernatural entity with effectively unlimited power flies in the face of every natural physical law we have observed to be operating in the universe.
2. No compelling verifiable evidence of the existence of this extraordinary thing can ever be presented when it is pressed for.
3. The manner in which religions offer their believers various psychological braces against things like fear of their mortality and the fact that the majority of believers are indoctrinated in these beliefs from childhood while being taught that doubting them is sinful or a path to oblivion offers compelling motivation for them to maintain the claim that this entity exists despite the lack of evidence, and to block out conflicting observations that might undermine that belief.



So yes, you shouldn't doubt Denmark exists just because you haven't personally seen it. That would be irrational.

God is not remotely analogous to Denmark. As far as this question is concerned God is almost the polar opposite of Denmark.

If that’s fair enough, then let’s move on. The next step is to study the nature of atheism’s claim. If the fundamental affirmation of genuine atheism is that there is ‘no God,’ then what sort of ‘God’ is it that the atheist aims at denying?

Since in order to be an atheist one would have to not have a belief in *any* Gods the answer is rather clearly all of them.

I'm not going to waste further time responding in any more detail to something so simple and obvious.

But if this is true, then this thorough-going atheism can no longer get any support from one of the New Atheist’s favourite objections; namely, that things in this world are messed up, and this negates any possibility of there being a good God. For the apparent disorder of the world could rather be evidence of an evil or uncaring God.

The author really needs to get a solid understanding of how evidence works.

While the existence of an evil uncaring world does constitute evidence against the existence of any deity who is claimed to have been perfectly benevolent while creating that world... to claim that that evil and uncaring world would represent evidence it was created by an evil supernatural magic entity is like claiming that the fact that objects of mass attract each other is evidence of the existence of Gravity Fairies. (It isn't)



The entire section on how atheists don't have conclusive evidence God doesn't exist is already addressed by a proper understanding of that atheism means. One does not require conclusive evidence something does not exist in order to not believe it does. One simply requires that no sufficient reason to adopt such a belief has been presented. Hence my also not believing in bridge trolls, gravity fairies, yeti, sock gremlins, or any of the innumerable other fanciful things anyone could dream up then demand I disprove the existence of.

Stephen Anderson has built himself a fine straw man and the dissected it. The vast majority of the world's atheists make no claims about the existence of gods. They merely don't believe in them for lack of empirical evidence. Agnosticism originally was the claim that it cannot be known whether gods exist or not. The common usage today is doubt about the existence of gods. Most of the world's atheists would also count themselves agnostics because they cannot prove the non-existence of gods. For myself I accept that I cannot prove gods don't exist but I think it more likely that the sun will not rise tomorrow than that a traditional type of god exists.

badmutha wrote:This was nothing more than a complete strawman argument, that reflects the most basic or willful misunderstanding of the what it means to be an atheist or an agnostic.
Let's start with your blatant and incorrect recreation of what atheism means.
Atheism does claim that god(s) is impossible. It makes no affirmative claims at all. It is the simple position of non-belief. Atheism is no more a knowledge claim than theism - a term you also got wrong.
Theism does not claim knowledge of god. Theism is the BELIEF there is a god. Atheism is the absence of such belief. Nothing more..

Exactly.
In definitive terms this is spot on. Some Atheists will take this further, whilst others will not give it a second thought. The "New Atheists" in addition to atheism, demonstrate the dangers of religion, and show reasons why justifications for god are false and speculative.
This confuses many theists and other nay-sayers that they cannot cope that a one word descriptor does not exhaust the descriptive power of a single word. Whatever the New Atheists might say against religion and religious believe, does not change what atheism is
Just because some football supporters are violent thugs, does not mean that being a football supported entails being violent; anymore than being a doctor involves being a paediatric expert.
This is a crass human failing, that I am surprised to see in an article in PN.
There is a perfectly good word for what the NewAs are doing: antitheist (a position which holds that belief in god is harmful); or anti-religious.
These are not positions which are "STRONGER" unless you think like an ass. Do we say that a brain surgeon is a "stronger" doctor than a GP?
Atheism is a position that is indefensible, because it is claim-less; whereas the antitheist position is as defensible and as it has much to recommend it with empirical observations of history.
To pretend atheism is a positive assertion is question begging nonsense. What god, whose god, whatta ya got?

I think everyone here so far brought up what I was thinking too. I'll add my own to amplify what has already been responded to.

To give "charity" to the definition of "atheism", one has to initially recognize that words prefixed with this does not refer to a simple binary negation. There are many such kinds of negations. Here, this type of negation means, "an absence of" or "without". In context to most other atheists like myself are aware, we intend the definition to mean, "without-" or "have an absence of -"; "-theism" by us means, "a posited belief in at least some defined entity called 'God', often including extraneous details beyond the simple Deistic definition." The Deistic form logically reduces to a renaming of "the unknown cause of reality" akin to a variable. I believe that even the original founders of what became religion likely actually thought this very way themselves. The author of this article did NOT give the best charity to the atheist here. And since all of what he says follows from this scarecrow position, his whole argument falters from that point on.

"Agnostic" vs. "Gnostic" is also not understood by this author. Using the interpretation I gave above regarding "a-", "agnostic" means "without knowledge". This is about 'how' one practices or can argue for some position. I am both depending on what I'm arguing in particular. I am a General Agnostic Atheist meaning that with regards to whether some form of non-specifying Deistic type being could exist, I lack certain knowledge. I am a Specific Gnostic Atheist in that I have positive capacity to disprove specific beliefs of a given "God". On this last description, it is an infinite process as long as another person can propose another 'God', in a NON-Deistic form.

A cat can be understood as "atheist"; a person discussing theism can be "gnostic" or "agnostic" about their state as well as process; and we can also differ on particular contingent reality by having some "gnostic" as well as some "agnostic" positions or actions. "Specific" knowledge of every member of the class of ALL GODS may not be able to close, but the same with respect to one given one at a time can; "general" knowledge can find such closure when reducing the concepts common to all religions defined by "theists" are defined.

The onus is on the Specific Gnostic Theist to provide justifications. They also lack the very same problem the author asserts of his ill-defined charitable definition of atheists -- namely, to disprove all other "Gods" of other co-religionists. A General Gnostic Theist must argue for ALL of them; a General Agnostic Theist reduces to a simple Deist; and a Specific Agnostic Theist represents the secular person going to some church just because that's where their parents went without a motive to care knowing one way or the other.

The "principle of charity" doesn't seem to be very charitable or even useful in this instance. Regarding "Thus atheism means simply ‘no God’. It claims there exists no kind of god:"

This obviously can't be taken as true unless we first have an agreed-upon definition of God. For example, if God is defined simply as, "human consciousness," nearly all atheists believe that human consciousness exists, and so nearly all atheists believe that that God exists. On the other hand, if God is an old, magically powerful man who lives bedridden atop Mount Arafat. We can prove that God's non existence by simply going to Arafat and seeing no sign of God whatsoever. So clearly, it's no use to speak of belief or disbelieve in the abstraction of 'any kind of God.' Instead, atheism (and its converse) must be defined with respect to a particular god or set of gods. So what God do you want to talk about? establish that first before theorizing about the existence or non-existence of that god.

absence of proof is not proof of absence

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:absence of proof is not proof of absence

-Imp

But in the absence of proof, there is no reason to accept the proposition either. Which is basically what most atheists say. 'No evidence is provided, so currently I have no reason to accept the proposition as true'. Including the proposition doesn't give new insight into reality, it doesn't predict anything and it doesn't explain anything. Worst case, it makes reality even more of a mystery. Making the proposition completely worthless, even as a possible explainatory device

This is why atheists do not accept, or 'not believe', the proposition is true.

Little extra, because it kinda annoys me:
For making such a statement the proposition of 'god' needs to be known. So, no, cats and dogs (or rocks) do not have a philosophical stance on the proposition of there being a god. They are not atheists.