Foote, continued:

huxley:

In a typical exchange, Foote challenged a critic "to refer me to one atheist who denies the existence of God". The atheist is a person who is without a belief in a god; "that is all the A before Theist really means".

Obstinacy does not pass for intelligence - Foote should have realised that. There are a lot of atheists who deny the existence of God, as has been noted from the argument in George Smith's definition. Like I said on entering this discussion, people like Doug Jessef is one honest such atheist whose definition of atheism is predicated on the question of the existence of God. Although he acknowledges that atheism is commonly understood as the denial of the existence of God, he preferred a slightly different stance, which at the end is simply saying the same thing in a new phrase. I'll let him speak for himself:

[list][list]"As commonly understood, atheism is the denial of the existence of God. I prefer a slightly different formulation, in which atheism is the claim that there is no rational justification for belief in the existence of God. More particularly, I take atheism to assert that, when all the evidence for and against is weighed, the best conclusion to draw is that there is no God." [see it here][/list][/list]

If Doug Jessef was not playing with words to his own detriment, could someone please explicate the difference (if any) between the denial of the existence of God and the conclusion that there is no God?!? What was Jessef playing at?

Okay, G. W. Foote and Doug Jessef may not have been contemporaries; but Foote should have been more reasonable to allow for the possibility that many atheists actually hold atheism to be the denial of the existence of God. Being so brash was certainly not working in his favour.

Other perspectives now: G. H. Smith, d'Holbach and E. Nagel ~~

huxley:

This was also the view of Charles Bradlaugh, the most influential atehist in Victorian England. In The Freethinkers Textbook (1876), after noting that the meaning of atheism has been continously misrepresented, Bradlaugh went on to say "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God".

Lol, Charles Bradlaugh should have waited to have a chat with Doug Jessef and people like Richard Dawkins who both assert a "no God" argument. If Bradlaugh was right, both Dawkins and Jessef must have missed the mark by a million miles.

huxley:

No historian has yet undertaken a thorough investigation of this negative definition, so we don't know when it came into common use, but we see traces of it as early as the 17th century. For exampl John Locke, in Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), cited travel accounts that reported "whole nation[b]s[/b]" of atheists, "amongst whom there was to be found no notion of a God, no religion".

John Locke should please give us a few examples of the so-called "whole nations" (plural) among whom there were ever to be found no notion of a God or religion. I'll reserve my comment that he was merely carping, until he has provided such examples in his "exxtensive travels". Passing through a street selectively chosen to avoid concrete fact should not be interpreted as extensive travels of "whole nations".

huxley:

The negative definition also appears in the first comprehensive defense of atheism, Baron d'Holbach's The System of Nature (1770). "All children are atheists", according to d'Holbach, because they have no idea of God.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because d'Holbach has been severely criticised (and IMHO sometimes unjustly so) for this meaningless and misleading idea. He is often classed with George H. Smith in this position, because Smith is quoted to have argued something similar:

[list][list]". . .the man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." [an example here - "from his 1990 book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies"][/list][/list]

George Smith listed a lot of atheist quotes to justify this ideology; but most people quoting the same Smith are very often not acquainted of the fact that both Smith and d'Holbach have been intelligently critiqued by other atheists who found their musings quite untennable. Let me share a few of them: Ernest Nagel. This is what he stated to counter d'Holbach:

[list][list][list]Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief,  Thus, a child who has recieved no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims.[/list][/list][/list]

What Nagel argues is very instructive for us. Smith believes that in including a child as an atheist, the reason is that the child has "the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved"; and yet, the same funny man goes on to state that such a child would be "still unaware of those issues". Now, please sir, could you decipher for us what sort of word-games Smith et al are playing here? How does someone be able to grasp an issue and yet still be unaware of it? Even so, where has such an event occured in reality - other than in Smith's unrealistic world?

Meanwhile, Ernest Nagel (an atheist himself) challenges such a rascal assumptions because he quite rightly notes that "a child who has recieved no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims"!! This is why I stated earlier that atheism "involves an active commitment to non-belief in God or gods, paranormal and supernatural phenomena, and spiritual values of any sort." In as much as a child has not expressed this commitment to non-belief in the issues involved, the child also has not denied the existence of God. The only logical thing to note here is that George Smith and d'Holbach were just confusing issues further for themselves.

Robert Flint, Richard Watson, et al. . .

huxley:

Unlike most of their modern counterparts, some previous Christians were fairminded enough to read what atheists had actually said before attacking their position. Once such person was Robert Flint, a highly respected scholar who wrote extensively on theology, history and economics. Flint clearly understood that atheism, as defended for many decades by prominent atheists, is negative rather than positive in character. In Agnosticism (1903), Flint pointed out that the atheist "is not necessarily a man who says, There is no God".

Robert Flint, though heralded as a brilliant mind in his time, unfortunately got that one wrong. Even before 1903, atheists themselves were understood to have used the word atheism as the denial of the existence of God - and for nearly over 250 years counting back from the present age, that has been the one underlying principle of that term among many atheists themselves. We may note indeed that after it has been consistently challenged, atheists have constantly redefined the term to persuade themselves about what they hold regarding their various ideas and creeds.

It is remarkable that the adjectives you alluded to earlier (such as "positive, negative, weak" atheism) are simply shades of meanings that are traced back, not to atheists themselves, but to theistic apologetics! If we examine this issue more closely, you will find that it was theistic apologists who helped identify these various forms of atheistic leanings, so that people do not misquote or misunderstand atheists when they attempt to remedy false concepts about their persuasions. But for all practical purposes, Robert Flint was incorrect to claim that atheists never asserted that "There is no God".

A second issue to note above is that Robert meant to discuss atheism, but actually he confused the term with agnosticism. The agnostic does not assume a concretely atheistic position of asserting the denial of the existence of God; what he generally posits is that he has no knowledge as to whether ot not God exists - a very different thing from the atheism we know and have been discussing so far.

huxley:

On the contrary, this "positive or dogmatic atheism, so far as being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. . ."

It is not rare - it is reductionistic to assume it so.

huxley:

The atheist is simply a person "who does notbelieve that there is a God", and this absence of belief may stem from nothing more than "want of knowledge that there is a God."

Flint again is wrong. I do not want to repeat myself ad hominem on this issue - as I have already distinguished the true definition from a reductionsitic idea of the terms. Atheism denies the existence of God; it is not a soft position of agnosticism (a want of knowledge that there is a God).

huxley:

Flient concludes: "The word atheist is a thoroughly honest unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less".

Poor Flint - dead wrong, and he should have been acquainted with the real world to know better.

huxley:

The same point had been made decades earlier by another Christian theologian, Richard Watson, who was well known for his attacks on Thomas Paine and other freethinkers. In a Biblical and Theological Dictionary (1831), Watson maintained that atheism literally means "without God": An atheist, "in the strict and proper sence of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of god, or who owns no being superior to nature."

Is there any difference between Richard Watson's definition of one who "does not believe in the existence of god" and one who "denies the existence of God"?

The agnostic does not believe in God - whether God exists or not, he/she simply does not believe in Him. Atheism on the other hand is not "lack of belief", but rather a denial of the existence of God. The difference is this: the agnostic says: "I do not know", while the atheist says "I deny His existence". They should not be consfused as these gentlemen have confused the terms. The denial of the existence of God is not agnoticism, but rather atheism.

huxley:

Twentieth-century freethinkers have continued to defend the negative definition. In A Rationalist Enclyclopedia (1950) Joseph McCabe, a former Jesuit priest who became prominent atheist, defined atheism as "the absence of theistic belief".

Joseph McCabe would pass only in so far as he does not know the difference.

huxley:

And Chapman Cohen, president of Britain's National Secular Society and author of many books on atheism, wrote "If one believes in a god, one is a theist. If one does not belief in a god, then one is an A-theist - he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely,exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God". (Why Atheism, Pages 23 - 24)

A convenient definition, which we may understand as posited for the reductionist interest. This kind of arguement stems from people who have no clue how to relate language migration between cultures. They make so much of the "a" while forgetting the meaning of the word as a whole. Let me give you an example:

Suppose we drive on about this idea that the prefix "a-" means "without", are we to qualify every concept as such? What about "bridge" and "abridge" - certainly, we know that "a[/b]bridge" does not mean "without bridge", and we have to look at its real meaning as standing in a word. Other examples are "[b]corn" and "acorn" - the latter term ([b]a[/b]corn) does not mean "without corn".

I only proffered this to clarify that when we read issues, we should not be easily misled by men sounding intelligent but are far from it. Atheism is the denial of God and the supernatural; it does not mean "without god", because the proper word for without theism is [b]non[/b]theism! The concept of nontheism is sometimes used to cover for atheism; but they are not the same.

Michael Martin, Richard Dawkins, Nicholas Everett, et al

huxley:

Of course, humans would not be humans if we did not make improvement on what we already have working well. Thus some philosopher have actually started make and defending positive atheism. On such is Michael Martin, who has written a number of books on the subject. For my money, his best book on the subject is "Atheism - A Philosophical Justification"

In this work Martin defends both weak (negative atheism) and strong (positive) atheism. I shall be posting on his work in due course when I had had the time to digest better the arguments.

I look forward to such posts from his quotes.

huxley:

Other atheist scholars defend atheism from a probabilistic stance, basically say that after examining all the arguments, the chances of such a god as the Abrahamic god is extremely unlikely. Richard Dawkins and Nicholas Everett fall into this class.

We shall get to Richard Dawkins (often mentioned between my repostes) and Nicholas Everett as well in due course. I shall reserve my comments until then.

huxley:

In a pragmatic sense, what does all of this mean. Well for all intends and purposes, a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a probabilistic atheist and an agnostics share the same outlook of life. They live their lives practically without reverence to a god of deity. The subtly technical differences in their philosophical positions does not express itself into differences in their worldviews and their approach to life, as far as deities are concerned.

I quite appreciate your concluding remarks. . . it often helps for discussions of this sort to clearly give readers the gist of all accounts for those who may not have the time to read long posts.

However, as I have taken the time to enunciate the differences between the broad concept of atheism and agnosticism, I maintain that they are not the same and (to my knowledge) have never been confused between the informed propoents of either camp.

huxley:

And ultimately, this is what matters, whether one spends their valuable time and effort worshiping a being about whom they have no knowledge, or whether one spends one time and effort on more human and earthly related activities.

The ultimate issue is for atheists to understand that they cannot keep alleging that theists have "no knowledge" of the God whom we worship (I speak as a Christian theist and not for "theists" in general). We do have the knowledge of Him with whom we have to do; and such knowledge should not become a bother to the naturalist and earth-bound materialist. It is the active rejection of the supernatural and spiritual realities against which atheists argue that has been the ultimate question. The core values of theism are often welcomed by atheists themselves - an example being "morality". But that which the naturalist cannot define in naturalistic terms even on excuses of the superiority of "science" should also humble us as well - because when you ask the naturalist how he measures morality on scientific basis, he stands mute. Should he then justify his pragmatism against issues which he cannot disprove because he does not agree with the convictions of others?

huxley:

One of George Smiths seminal books, "The case Againgst God" is given in the link below;

http://www.federacionatea.org/documentos/thecaseagainstgod.pdf

Thanks, I have read quite a lot of George Smith. The wonder is that after a feast of his untennable and indefensible musings, I am able to shake my head and return to face the reality of our observable world. I would not be referencing such men as George H. Smith if I were you. . . particularly because his ideas have large gapping holes which have been pointed out by other atheists.

Just in kind, I may recommend you carefully read the sane response of Allistar McGrath to Richard Dawkins' delusion (no pun or disses intended).

On the whole, thank you for a calm and reasoned exercise. Let's do this again, ya? Yes!

all of you PLEASE STOP, STOP, STOP.
Na wa for Una o
wont U guys stop arguing.
Catholic, protestant, atheist,pentecostal and any other sect
believe what U believe.
as far as I am concerned U have heard that JESUS SAVES, and that is all I need to know.

My dear @affee,

We have decided long ago to forego attacks, insults or castigations, and rather seek to settle down and talk. . . I mean, really talk! I would not have tried to even concern myself with such a discussion; but seeing that misconceptions about terms (whether theism or atheism) have been at the root of the disagreements so far, I decided to share what I know from factual sources with our atheist, rationalist and naturalist friends - so that they also learn to understand that theists (and I speak as a Christian theist) are not irrational or non-thinking people. I believe the apostles knew that questions would be asked when Peter stated:

[list][list]"¹⁵But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: ¹⁶Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16).[/list][/list]

People will ask questions: and for us to fail to give reasoned answers is detrimental to our own cause. The difference is that we do so in a spirit of humility, common sense, and amicable/friendly attitude. I can testify that many atheists often get upset and closed minded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when we insult or castigate them. They may do so, but we are not to return the same attitude in like manner.

Jesus is Lord and Saviour - I believe so and have experienced His supernatural power in my life. The reason for my Christian theistic position is what I'm trying to share with our friends.

Blessings.

Pilgrim.1,

Many thanks for your detailed response. I have only just quickly skimmed over them but was able to draw one main point. I shall address the full post later today when I have more time. For the meantime, I have just one more question for you. (or two).

Why do you think only your definition of atheism (denial of the existence of god) the correct? All other definitions dating back 400 years appear to be wrong. Why is that so?

Can you provide evidence that the positive definition has been the position consistently defended by atheist, apart from Doug Joseph?

Will address your other points later.

HAve a good day!

pilgrim.1:

My dear @affee,

We have decided long ago to forego attacks, insults or castigations, and rather seek to settle down and talk. . . I mean, really talk! I would not have tried to even concern myself with such a discussion; but seeing that misconceptions about terms (whether theism or atheism) have been at the root of the disagreements so far, I decided to share what I know from factual sources with our atheist, rationalist and naturalist friends - so that they also learn to understand that theists (and I speak as a Christian theist) are not irrational or non-thinking people. I believe the apostles knew that questions would be asked when Peter stated:

[list][list]"¹⁵But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: ¹⁶Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16).[/list][/list]

People will ask questions: and for us to fail to give reasoned answers is detrimental to our own cause. The difference is that we do so in a spirit of humility, common sense, and amicable/friendly attitude. I can testify that many atheists often get upset and closed minded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when we insult or castigate them. They may do so, but we are not to return the same attitude in like manner.

Jesus is Lord and Saviour - I believe so and have experienced His supernatural power in my life. The reason for my Christian theistic position is what I'm trying to share with our friends.

Blessings.

MY DEAR, i think i will just put these words where ever I read words of ignorance.

JESUS IS LORD or JESUS SAVES
what do you think?

shalom

@affee,

affee:

MY DEAR, i think i will just put these words where ever I read words of ignorance.

Okay, your say. Many blessings.

Hi huxley,

Thank you again for those two very legitimate questions, which I would like to summarily address:

huxley:

Why do you think only your definition of atheism (denial of the existence of god) the correct? All other definitions dating back 400 years appear to be wrong. Why is that so?

Actually, it is not my own definition of atheism; and as you can see I've hitherto referenced atheists themselves on both sides of the paradigm. The reason why I have been inclined to adopt the radical definition of those in the Doug Jessef and Ernest Nagel camp (even though I'm not an atheist) is because they have cogent and irrefutable reasons for rejecting the ideas of other atheists such as George Smith and d'Holbach. As also demonstrated earlier from the atheist guys at EvilBible.com, they have quite the same reasons as those of the Nagel camp as to what really is to be understood as atheism proper. Smith and d'Holbach considered ideas about atheism to include children for reasons that are too weak and defenceless in the proper sense of the word.

Of course, huxley, it doesn't mean that by arguing the point in Jessef et al, I was necessarily making rubbish of the opinions of other atheists. No, not at all - everyone is free to hold definitions for themselves as best suited to their worldviews. What is the problem in the Smith-d'Holbach camp? It is rather that they are redefining issues and making claims which ignore the facts on the ground and therefore including children in their narrow philosophy. Tell me, do these guys sincerely believe that that children are atheists because they consciously deny the existence of God?

huxley:

Can you provide evidence that the positive definition has been the position consistently defended by atheist, apart from Doug Joseph?

Apart from Doug Jessef, Ernest Nagel, Kai Nielsen and Paul Edwards, there are a whole lot of well-informed atheists down through history (even within the 400 year span you indicated). The definition has not always been the same among atheists; but the point is that at all instances in further scrutiny, atheists have often denied the existence of God, gods, the supernatural, and paranormal phenomena and realities.

History reminds us that not all naturalists have been able to identify themselves as "atheists" - and that is why Thomas Huxley rather saw himself as an agnostic because he was not so inclined to deny the existence of God and the supernatural, though he argued that he did not have sufficient reason to be a theist. The difference is a huge one, and we should never lose sight of it.

huxley:

Will address your other points later.

HAve a good day!

Do have a pleasant weekend, huxley.

Having looked at the various definition of atheism used by various atheism themselves and their critics, I thought it would be prudent to take a step back and look at how far we have come.

Basically, I think the atheism "community" is not a monochromatic camp, with people supporting and espousing slightly different views - positive atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, natural atheism, personal atheism, probabilistic atheism, relativistic atheism etc, etc.

Why are all these diverse but slight different adjectives needed for the word. I think this is partly motivated by renewed interest in taking a more philosophical approach to religion, belief, and non-belief.

I used the expression "philosophical atheism" earlier and I noticed you totally misunderstood what it means. It basically means the application of the tools of philosophy to the subject of atheism.  It is not the same as the philosophy of atheism, and I agree with George Smith on this.  A few example might be in order;

Philosophy of Science is NOT the same as philosophical science
Philosophy of Literature is NOT the same as philophical literature
Philosophy of atheism is NOT the same as philosophical atheism.

Philosophical Atheism (the word "Philosophical" is used as an adjective in this respect) is synonymous with "thinking" or "thoughtful" atheism. Basically, atheism arrived at after having reflected of the arguments for and against the propositions of beliefs and existence of god.

Philosophical atheism can be contrasted with what David Eller and George Smith called natural atheism - A natural atheist is someone who lacks knowledge or exposure to the idea of god. And I agree that children who have not been schooled in theism, are atheist of the natural kind. 

Example 1 - I have a four and a half years old son who has not been schooled in the notion of god (except on the odd ocassion that his mum takes him to church). He uses the word "god" only as an expletive, which he picked up from nursery (as in, "Oooooh, my god".

Now what do you think my son is, with respect to beliefs in god?  He knows about the existence of many thinks at his age - the sun, planets, animals, cars, daddy, mummy. He even knows that babies come from mother's tommy. So at his age he is capable of understand many concepts, but god, as a concept to him is meaningless.

Example 2 - Feral Children.  What belief system would a feral child have, who was not introduced to the notion of god before he/she was separated from fellow human communities?  A great number of these feral child would have lived amongst animals, which clearly (as far as we know) do not cognitively relate to the notion of gods.

Are feral children, on first discovery atheists, or theists?

In my view, these are reasons why such subtly distinctions are required.  They do not blur the lines (to use of of your favoured expressions), but they illuminate the subject further.


It would really be interesting to see what you think the theistic position of feral children are.

First, it would make more sense to define what is meant by atheism itself. There are many conflicting definitions that many atheists hold about the term; but for all practical purposes of this discussion, I would be leaving the reductionist idea that "atheism simply means the lack of belief in any god". My reason for throwing out that idea is simple: there are a lot of people who do not believe in God, but that in itself does not make them atheists. What qualifies as atheism is the commitment to the denial of the existence of God and the supernatural. However one looks at it, two things often stand out: "denial" and "existence" - these are the very core elements in the atheistic belief system, because the core values of atheism rest properly on the denial of the existence of God.

So what do you call people who do NOT belief in god?  They are clearly NOT theist.  So what are they?


Now, what is in the definition?


Lack belief in god (does not belief in the existence of god, or no belief in god) is the postion of the weak (negative atheism).
No-god belief (denial of god existence, or say god does NOT exist) is the position of the strong (positive atheist)

(I can open up a different argument about our use of the word "belief", I shall leave that for another time.  This
think this word itself is at the centre of a great deal of the problems we have in the understand of the theistic/atheistic position)

It is inaccurate to assume that 'not believeing in God' equates to "atheism". The latter is much more than a 'lack of belief' in God - it involves an active commitment to non-belief in God or gods, paranormal and supernatural phenomena, and spiritual values of any sort. It is in this regard that the argument stating that "Everyone is born an atheist" is quite redundant and gravely uninformed. Many people hold that idea because they took David Eller's word for it, who in 2004 in his book Natural Atheism, p. 12 stated that: "All humans are born Atheists".

What name have you got for "not believing in God"?


The notion of describing children as some form of atheist predates Eller by many hundred of years. I think his exposition of the subject was simply much stronger, by putting them in a class of their own.

On the contrary, a better and more rigorous way of looking at it would be as Doug Jessef succinctly stated in 1998 - that someone who simply lacks theistic belief does not count as an atheist; his quote --

            "Someone who simply lacks theistic belief, a small child who has never been taught about God, or someone who simply rejects God as an act of rebellion does not count as an atheist"


Please note that this is a critical definition of atheism - given by an atheist himself. It means therefore, that the idea to make atheists out of babies is not shared by knowledgeable atheists around the world. Further, the rationalistic assumption that "everyone is born an atheist" simply does not hold any substance at all. This is one example of how people can make a grave mistake (as David Eller did), and many people would just take their word for it!

Doug Jessef is just one of many atheist who take the positive atheist position. Nicholas Everitt, J L Mackie and Richard Dawkins takes the probabilistic approach, George smith the negative approach, Michael Martin argues for both.
In fact, I have got a good book in which about 20 professional atheistic philosopher discuss this subject and the range of approach is as vast as the number of philosophers presented.  If you can check it out it is called
"Philosopher without God" http://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-without-Gods-Meditations-Atheism/dp/0195173074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221954996&sr=8-1

I already pointed out from the online resource that "The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other" (etymology of Atheism).

You see, calling someone who also believes in a god, albeit a different god from one's god, an atheist (as was the common practice in classical times) only shows how diverse the meaning of the word was, even back then.  This is clearly a form of relativistic atheism - for they both believe in god, but different gods.

Was it therefore wrong for Romans to call Christians as atheist, as documented by Polycarp? I don't think so. At the time, if you did not believe in the local orthodox god of the majority, you would be called atheist. I am sure the Christians also called the Roman pagan followers atheist, although these pagans had their own gods in the form of Zeus, Appolo, Mithras, etc, etc.

While I may not concern myself with the adjectives appended to atheism itself (such as 'positive atheism', 'negative atheism' or even 'weak atheism'), my one focus has been what the term "atheism" connotes. Just like the term theism simply being the expression of belief in the existence of God or gods, there are several qualifiers to distinguish between various types of theism. My present concerns however are about atheism, and not the adjectives appended thereto; and this is why people like George Smith is of very little consequences at the moment. Recall that I already stated:

I am surprise why you would casually dismiss Smith's treatment of this subject.  He was one of the foremost authors on this subject in recent times and his treatment is cited amongst many scholars as actually being the
breakthrough (for non professional philosophers) the subject need for sometime.  Other authors like Antony Flew, Bertrand Russell were found to be too technical and did not make as big an impact as Smith. Admittedly, the arguments have gotten more sophisticated since Smith published in the 70s.

Imagine if we were to coin a new word to mean denial of god's existence or lack of belief in the existence of god - let's called it delackism.  I submit that we can legitimately do this, after all, that is how language has evolved. (Don't be too hang up of the etymology of the word "atheist"

Now, how would a delackist defend his postion in view of the evidence or lack thereof? Basically, a delackist would find herself confronted with all the issues an atheism has to face today.  Issues such as;

1) Can children be described as delackists?  If not should we make a separate category for children?
2) Is it possible to have knowledge of something that is beyond our senses? If not, should we create a separate category for this?
3) What if everyone else calls everyone else a delackist?

I trust you will see the problem that many moderm day philosophers face, mostly centred around 2 above and it is an epistemological problem.  As we know more about the world, the more we find we need new categories to describe the world. The same applies to delackism, as to atheism.

George Smith's treatment, while important, was only foundational to the whole subject of atheism.  Michael Martin's treatment, which defend both positive and negative atheism, extend the work of Smith much more and also goes into very advance (and mathematical) philosophical exposition of the subject.  His basic approach is as follows;

1)  Where does the burden of proof lie?  He argues it lies with the theist, not the one refuting the claim.
2)  If he is right in saying that the burden of proof is with the theist, then the theist MUST define WHO their god is, otherwise all god-talk is meaningless. Thus negative atheism is geared at examining the meaningfulness of god-talk.  So he argues whether there is meaning, consistency and logical coherence in an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god.
3)  In the defence of positive atheism, he extends the work he has already done with negative atheism with arguments from evil,teleological arguments, free will and theodocy.

This is quite an impressive work and for my money the best book on the subject, although a lot of it is too technical for me.

- -
- -

More to follow

@huxley,

I carefully perused your reposte and while appreciating a few added insight in yours this time around, I would like to point out a few other weak strands in yours.

huxley:

Having looked at the various definition of atheism used by various atheism themselves and their critics, I thought it would be prudent to take a step back and look at how far we have come.

Later, I'll delineate them summarily for us.

huxley:

Basically, I think the atheism "community" is not a monochromatic camp, with people supporting and espousing slightly different views - positive atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, natural atheism, personal atheism, probabilistic atheism, relativistic atheism etc, etc.

Why are all these diverse but slight different adjectives needed for the word. I think this is partly motivated by renewed interest in taking a more philosophical approach to religion, belief, and non-belief.

I observe actually that discussions about the theistic worldview have been most philosophical from its earliest roots. The "more philosophical approach" is not a recent event.

huxley:

I used the expression "philosophical atheism" earlier and I noticed you totally misunderstood what it means. It basically means the application of the tools of philosophy to the subject of atheism. It is not the same as the philosophy of atheism, and I agree with George Smith on this. A few example might be in order;

Philosophy of Science is NOT the same as philosophical science
Philosophy of Literature is NOT the same as philophical literature
Philosophy of atheism is NOT the same as philosophical atheism.

I don't think I confused the terms, and indeed I knew already the difference between the examples you highlighted. What is remarkable here is that people who are struggling to define what they mean are still making a grave mistake to their own disfavour. "Philosophical atheism" is not the application of tools of philosophy to atheism; because one would be asking who's applying the tool to atheism. Actually, it should rather be the categorization of atheism based on philosophical factors - the difference between the two is simple: (a) applying the tools of philosophy to a[/b]theism suggests that [b]a[/b]theism is being questioned; whereas, (b) categorizing atheism on the basis of philosophical factors is atheism derived from philosophy.

Even when you want to agree with George Smith, I cannot deny you that prerogative. However, I would not be so inclined if I were you, because the conclusion that Smith draws is that "a negative position can [b]never serve as a satisfactory foundation for a philosophical system" - which it may serve the philosophical atheist to note well.

huxley:

Philosophical Atheism (the word "Philosophical" is used as an adjective in this respect) is synonymous with "thinking" or "thoughtful" atheism. Basically, atheism arrived at after having reflected of the arguments for and against the propositions of beliefs and existence of god.

It would then have nothing differing from other forms of atheism - are they not all claiming to have arrived at that very position after having reflected on the arguments both ways?

huxley:

Philosophical atheism can be contrasted with what David Eller and George Smith called natural atheism - A natural atheist is someone who lacks knowledge or exposure to the idea of god. And I agree that children who have not been schooled in theism, are atheist of the natural kind.

While such a definition may be idealistically convenient for such men, the problem is that atheism is a position consciously arrived at. Since children do not make such a conscious denial of theistic claims as do atheists themselves, it is futile for any atheist to try and label children as such. Even David Eller, George Smith and d'Holbach would have to give us one such example of where a child - any child - was ever known to have exercised a conscious denial of theistic claims (afterall, did Smith not argue that such a child would have "the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved" - has Smith ever given us such an example anywhere?).

huxley:

Example 1 - I have a four and a half years old son who has not been schooled in the notion of god (except on the odd ocassion that his mum takes him to church). He uses the word "god" only as an expletive, which he picked up from nursery (as in, "Oooooh, my god".

Now what do you think my son is, with respect to beliefs in god? He knows about the existence of many thinks at his age - the sun, planets, animals, cars, daddy, mummy. He even knows that babies come from mother's tommy. So at his age he is capable of understand many concepts, but god, as a concept to him is meaningless.

Dear sir, your son has not qualified himself as an atheist - in as much as he has not consciously denied theistic claims. Your son has not rationalized issues as an atheist; your son has no clue what "philosophical atheism" is all about; and your son most likely will sit on a hard bench begging not to be labelled for claims he has not stated either.

huxley:

Example 2 - Feral Children. What belief system would a feral child have, who was not introduced to the notion of god before he/she was separated from fellow human communities? A great number of these feral child would have lived amongst animals, which clearly (as far as we know) do not cognitively relate to the notion of gods.

Are feral children, on first discovery atheists, or theists?

Since the qualifier there is a "cognitive" factor, may I ask if such a feral child has expressed a conscious denial of theistic claims? I don't mean to be rude by answering a question with another question. But if I must and should answer yours, I maintain that since even Smith et al are unable to make a strong case for their ideology of trying to make atheists out of babies, the point is a mute one - for children (whether feral or not) have not expressed any commitment to theistic or atheistic claims.

huxley:

In my view, these are reasons why such subtly distinctions are required. They do not blur the lines (to use of of your favoured expressions), but they illuminate the subject further.

I'm sorry, they actually obfuscate issues further - because if one were to ask what shade of atheism such children adhere to, they may think us below our station for projecting the various "-isms" upon them where they have not consciously solicited thereof (whether 'positive atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, natural atheism, personal atheism, probabilistic atheism, relativistic atheism')

huxley:

It would really be interesting to see what you think the theistic position of feral children are.

The Bible holds babies as innocent rather than consciously theistic. What this means is that they are not consciously developed to the age of reason and accountability to apply themselves to such questions, and here is a verse that underscores this point:

"Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey,
and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between
good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it,
and they shall possess it." [Deut. 1:39]

The question of "cognition" on such matters of theism and atheism is vital, and it is one which such thinkers as Smith had tried to evade in order to excuse in the idea that all children are atheists. What they were trying to do is to force their idea upon children by first noting their "cognition" while yet ignoring the fact that children have not denied theistic claims by a conscious act.

huxley:

So what do you call people who do NOT belief in god? They are clearly NOT theist. So what are they?

Excuse me? Have all children told YOU that they do not believe in God? If they have not done so, why fforce that title upon them?

Now, I noted that there are many people who do not believe in God but who do not describe themselves as atheists. I mentioned particularly Thomas Huxley who used the term "agnostic" rather than atheist. What you are trying to do is make atheists out of everyone by ignoring their right to identify for themselves that they do not necessary take the title of atheists for themselves! This is what even atheists at EvilBible.com have tagged "Stupid Argument #1" and a "commonly repeated error" to assume that everyone who does not believe in God is therefore an atheist! How narrow is that?

huxley:

Now, what is in the definition?

Lack belief in god (does not belief in the existence of god, or no belief in god) is the postion of the weak (negative atheism).
No-god belief (denial of god existence, or say god does NOT exist) is the position of the strong (positive atheist)

My dear, this effort to temper this definition into a maliable piece is unnecessary - espcially because you only buttressing my point! How? Look carefully again at the red-highlighted words in your quote: "denial. . existence" (or, "does not. . . existence". Whether weak or strong atheism, have you not just stated the very same thing I stated as the core underlying principle of atheism - the denial of the existence of God?!? Remember what two words (denial and existence) I stated earlier that you will find in whatever idea of atheism one holds? Here again:

pilgrim.1:

What qualifies as atheism is the commitment to the denial of the existence of God and the supernatural. However one looks at it, two things often stand out: "denial" and "existence" - these are the very core elements in the atheistic belief system, because the core values of atheism rest properly on the denial of the existence of God.

Dear huxley, what you had just done is simply confirm the very same thing I stated earlier. Do you want to try again to redefine it for us and see if you can actually bleach those two words from the fact?

huxley:

(I can open up a different argument about our use of the word "belief", I shall leave that for another time.

It would be most welcome - as if atheists themselves have not used that very term most often in quite a dilemma? All the same, I would oblige you if that's where you would like to advance it to - but be fully aware that atheists have not been immuned from applying that world to their worldview.

huxley:

This
think this word itself is at the centre of a great deal of the problems we have in the understand of the theistic/atheistic position)

True - that's why I decided to call our attention to it so we shed ourselves of the misconceptions that many people have been bantering around.

huxley:

What name have you got for "not believing in God"?

There are various expressions of that idea, among which I have often mentioned agnosticism. Not everyone who does not believe in God identify themselves as atheists - there are many people who are actually religious but who are not atheistic. Remember we touched on Jainism, which is an ancient religion in India? Jainism does not believe in an omnipotent supreme being, creator or manager (kartā), but yet it is a religion holding most theistic core elements such as belief in spirit, soul of man, as well as the fact that every day most Jains bow and say their universal prayer, the "Namokara Mantra". Do we then refer to Jainism as atheism? If yes, please tell us what has atheism got to do with the Namokara Mantra?

huxley:

The notion of describing children as some form of atheist predates Eller by many hundred of years. I think his exposition of the subject was simply much stronger, by putting them in a class of their own.

For all of that, the idea that children are atheists is a weak argument, easily debunked by such thinkers as Ernest Nagel et al. That an idea has been promoted in this regard when we know that they are simply cutting corners should not be constantly subscribed to after it has failed down through the ages.

huxley:

Doug Jessef is just one of many atheist who take the positive atheist position. Nicholas Everitt, J L Mackie and Richard Dawkins takes the probabilistic approach, George smith the negative approach, Michael Martin argues for both.

Do not be easily fooled by Richard Dawkins - that is a very poor fellow who does not know what he's talking about on this issue, and many atheists have expressed a huge disappointment on his lack of coherence. Dawkins claims a "probabilistic" atheism, yet he argues for anything but that!

huxley:

In fact, I have got a good book in which about 20 professional atheistic philosopher discuss this subject and the range of approach is as vast as the number of philosophers presented. If you can check it out it is called
"Philosopher without God" http://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-without-Gods-Meditations-Atheism/dp/0195173074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221954996&sr=8-1

Someone recommended that book to me; admittedly, I have not had the motivation to get a copy and read it. The one thing I find is that every book that atheist friends have recommended are saying old things in new and interesting ways. Dear huxley, I have penned down notes taken from such readings that even the terms for belief and non-belief perused therefrom run to about 153 at the moment. Where does one start from? However, I do appreciate the kind gesture.

huxley:

You see, calling someone who also believes in a god, albeit a different god from one's god, an atheist (as was the common practice in classical times) only shows how diverse the meaning of the word was, even back then. This is clearly a form of relativistic atheism - for they both believe in god, but different gods.

The case is clear - "they both believe in god" is theism, not [b]a[/b]theism.

huxley:

Was it therefore wrong for Romans to call Christians as atheist, as documented by Polycarp? I don't think so.

It was wrong, for all practical purposes inferring from the context. Angry parties shouting at one another and slinging words incoherently do not establish a statement of fact. If you and I stated shouting at each other with accusations of one being a "thief", it does not mean that it is therefore true that we are thieves! We may both have used the term during angry shout bouts, but that would hardly pass for any literal value. Yes, Polycarp was wrong!

huxley:

At the time, if you did not believe in the local orthodox god of the majority, you would be called atheist.

The case was always an accusation rather than an affirmation.

huxley:

I am sure the Christians also called the Roman pagan followers atheist, although these pagans had their own gods in the form of Zeus, Appolo, Mithras, etc, etc.

Pally, lol. . . I already highlighted that very thing, as well as show what the circumstances were. One cannot argue to make the wrong use of a word the standard idea of that word for all time. An example: in 1279, the word gay simply meant "bundle of twigs bound up"; in 1785, it was an old British school term meaning "a junior who does certain duties for a senior"; and in 1914, the same word had come to mean a "male homosexual". Tell me, dear huxley, which one of these 3 meanings would philosophers argue the most if they wanted to write a book about the word "gay"?

So, it is with the pagan use of the term "atheism" against Christians. The circumstances were pejorative and accusative, rather than affirmative. Atheists today use them term as self-descriptive afformations of their worldview, and they cannot use that term to describe theists in the same regard.

huxley:

I am surprise why you would casually dismiss Smith's treatment of this subject. He was one of the foremost authors on this subject in recent times and his treatment is cited amongst many scholars as actually being the
breakthrough (for non professional philosophers) the subject need for sometime.

Shall I re-introduce Kai Nielsen? He's adjunct professor of philosophy at Concordia University; and professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. His specialization is in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Prof Nielsen has concrete written works on philosophy of religion, and is a leading advocate of contemporary, atheist philosophy with 22 books and 415 articles to his credit. As a past president of the Canadian Philosophical Association, Nielsen is also one of the founding members of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy. (excepts from etymology of Atheism).

Now, when a man of Kai's calibre counters the ideologies of George Smith, we had better pay close attention. Smith's arguements are too weak, and one doesn't have to travel far before seeing that he cannot make a Jain an atheist, even though the latter does not believe in a supreme craetor. For Smith to try to play word-games and emblazon the title of atheist on children is sadly an atrophied arguement - Ernest Nagel and Kai Nielsen show us why.

huxley:

Other authors like Antony Flew, Bertrand Russell were found to be too technical and did not make as big an impact as Smith. Admittedly, the arguments have gotten more sophisticated since Smith published in the 70s.

Unfortunately, Anthony Flew no longer counts as an atheist. Bertrand Russell hardly crystalized his philosophical leanings on atheism, and his was just an example of how fiesty rants against theism is counter productive to a theist. An honestly forthright thinker, no doubt, admired for his pungent wisecracks. . . but alas! we see he didn't quite scale to the ranks of Smith et al.

huxley:

Imagine if we were to coin a new word to mean denial of god's existence or lack of belief in the existence of god - let's called it delackism. I submit that we can legitimately do this, after all, that is how language has evolved. (Don't be too hang up of the etymology of the word "atheist"

Okay. . . I follow your trend. . .

huxley:

Now, how would a delackist defend his postion in view of the evidence or lack thereof? Basically, a delackist would find herself confronted with all the issues an atheism has to face today. Issues such as;

1) Can children be described as delackists? If not should we make a separate category for children?
2) Is it possible to have knowledge of something that is beyond our senses? If not, should we create a separate category for this?
3) What if everyone else calls everyone else a delackist?

My dear huxley, look again O. . . what word is highlighted in your delackist term? as far as the idea of "denial" is intoned, sorry. . . we cannot refer to children as such, because they haven't denied anything! As to the other two categories, again we cannot brand them such a sweeping term. Why? Because a huge problem would still have to be scaled in questions of such people as Jains who may not believe in a supreme creator, but are nonetheless adherents of a religion!

huxley:

I trust you will see the problem that many moderm day philosophers face, mostly centred around 2 above and it is an epistemological problem. As we know more about the world, the more we find we need new categories to describe the world. The same applies to delackism, as to atheism.

Okay, but between the two words is still the problem of those who do not fall in either category.

huxley:

George Smith's treatment, while important, was only foundational to the whole subject of atheism. Michael Martin's treatment, which defend both positive and negative atheism, extend the work of Smith much more and also goes into very advance (and mathematical) philosophical exposition of the subject. His basic approach is as follows;

1) Where does the burden of proof lie? He argues it lies with the theist, not the one refuting the claim.

I like this question; but Martin tried to sound intelligent while not making a clear case for his efforts. The burden of proof lies both on the theist as well the atheist. The problem for the atheist is to deny the supernatural, for no other reason than that it threatens his cherished creeds of commitment to non-belief in such phenomena. It is not as if people can deny the supernatural reality of our experiences; but such atheists simply don't have a mathematical model for explaining these phenomena - and what they cannot evidently deny, they ridicule!

huxley:

2) If he is right in saying that the burden of proof is with the theist, then the theist MUST define WHO their god is, otherwise all god-talk is meaningless.

This is like asking Dawkins to define what a meme is - a meaningless carping that no one has observed, but which he uses so assertively to posit arguments against the reality of the supernatural. Who has ever observed a meme, huxley?

huxley:

Thus negative atheism is geared at examining the meaningfulness of god-talk. So he argues whether there is meaning, consistency and logical coherence in an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god.

The basic premise is to examine if there is meaning in theistic core values. These men disappoint me seriously that with all their philosophy, they simply do not understand the basic principle of logic - the so-called "logical contradiction". That is not to say that is a tool of defence that I apply in my theistic belief. However, such philosophers are happy to argue against the perfectly coherent existence of God, while they are themselves happy to dispense with their own contradictions. Sigh!

huxley:

3) In the defence of positive atheism, he extends the work he has already done with negative atheism with arguments from evil,teleological arguments, free will and theodocy.

Maybe we shall get there some day soon. It would really be some discussion when the time arrives!

huxley:

This is quite an impressive work and for my money the best book on the subject, although a lot of it is too technical for me.

I gratefully acknowledge. Look forward to more, and do have a great Sunday.

Hello again,

And many thanks for your response. I must say, yours are the only responses that are getting me to work harder for my arguments, which I quite enjoy.

Since you mention Kai Neilson, I must admit, he is one of the leading philosophers on the subject whose books I don't own, although I have read parts of his work at bookshops, libraries and on Amazon. I did not think he covered the subject in as much depth as Michael Martin and that is why I have also hesitated in buy his books. Now, in view of your recommendation, I have place an order on Amazon for a couple of his books.

Ernert Nagel, is unfamiliar to me as a writer on this subject although I have come across him many times in the Philosopher of Science circles. I have not found any works of his dealing with atheism yet.

Since you seem to be impressed by the credentials of Kai Neilson, why don't you check out those of Michael Martin. He is arguably the leading writer in the field at the moment.

Michael L. Martin (born 3 February 1932) is an analytic philosopher and professor emeritus at Boston University.[1] He completed his Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Martin has concerned himself largely with philosophy of religion, though the philosophies of science, law, and sport have not escaped his attention. On the former, Martin has published a number of books and articles defending atheism and various arguments against the existence of God in exhaustive detail (among them, the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God). Martin, in his Atheism: a Philosophical Justification, cites a general absence of an atheistic response to contemporary work in philosophy of religion, and accepts the responsibility of a rigorous defense of nonbelief as, jestingly, his "cross to bear:"

The aim of this book is not to make atheism a popular belief or even to overcome its invisibility. My object is not utopian. It is merely to provide good reasons for being an atheist. … My object is to show that atheism is a rational position and that belief in God is not. I am quite aware that theistic beliefs are not always based on reason. My claim is that they should be. — Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, 24

Martin is a pluralist naturalist, as opposed to a physicalistic naturalist. He believes in non-physical abstract objects, as to explain the Principles of Logic and objective morality.[2]

Martin serves on the academic advisory board of the Secular Student Alliance [3] and the editorial board of Philo.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin_(philosopher))

I shall respond to the rest of the post later.

Hi huxley,

Good to read from you again. Need I say how much I've enjoyed discussing with you and appreciating your many inputs? Quite a challenge to my thinking as well, I admit.

huxley:

Since you mention Kai Neilson, I must admit, he is one of the leading philosophers on the subject whose books I don't own, although I have read parts of his work at bookshops, libraries and on Amazon. I did not think he covered the subject in as much depth as Michael Martin and that is why I have also hesitated in buy his books. Now, in view of your recommendation, I have place an order on Amazon for a couple of his books.

Good to know about your interest in Kai Nielson's books. I don't own any, but have read a few which were borrowed from friends.

huxley:

Ernert Nagel, is unfamiliar to me as a writer on this subject although I have come across him many times in the Philosopher of Science circles. I have not found any works of his dealing with atheism yet.

Well, Ernest Nagel is well known in the field of logic, mathematics, philosophy of science. I don't remember reading many sole-authored book by him, although there are quite a number that he has co-authored with other scholars in those various disciplines. If I could recall (please I may be wrong), one of my recent reads include a book he authored himself which was quite a technical and delightful piece: "Sovereign Reason and Other Studies in the Philosophy of Science" (can't remember the publishers - might ask to borrow it again from my friend). Anyhow, his arguments on fallibilism, naive realism, and genetic fallacy among others make for very enlightened reading (IMHO), though I'm aware that not many people appreciate his insights. His arguments against the definitions of atheism held by Smith et al, I have only read in articles.

huxley:

Since you seem to be impressed by the credentials of Kai Neilson, why don't you check out those of Michael Martin. He is arguably the leading writer in the field at the moment.

Will do so in due course, and I appreciate the recommendation.

Incidentally (or coincidentally), these discussions have sort of brought on other varied interests. A friend of mine mooted the idea that it might be helpful for either of us to make an anthology of theism and atheism in this or another thread. The spark of interest was when she IM'ed me to enquire why I thought Jainism should not be misconstrued for a form of atheism. I don't know what to think about that - but what do you say?

huxley:

I shall respond to the rest of the post later.

Pleasure. Cheers.

Sis pilgrim.1, thank ou plenty much for direction to dis discussion. I don try read thru, I com find sth wey you write:

Let me first slice through G. Smith's take on the subject before going on to make other remarks on his arguements. According to what you posted, four things stand out:

(1) Smith reiterates my point that the very core of atheism is the denial of the existence of God - nothing less or short of that. Many people of atheistic leanings today like to lean towards the reductionist idea of viewing atheism as merely "a lack of belief" in the existence of God or gods; but as we have seen, that would include a whole lot of people who do not identify themselves as atheists - such as was the case with Thomas Huxley who rather coined the term "agnostic" instead of standing up to be counted as an atheist. The underlying element in atheism proper is the denial of the existence of God, and this is clearly indicated in Smith's quote above.

Na you I quote so, na me put di bold.

Hmnn, no be so o. In fact, wetin G. H. Smith explain na di opposite of di bold. Atheism, at di very core, at di very basic, no be denial at all. Atheism na "absence", absence of belief in God. Dat na why di example of pikin wey dem just born dey helep well well: 1-week old pikin no sabi God; e no fit deny God, e no fit affirm God. Di pikin na atheist. So therefore, all of us, na atheist we be when dem born us. Denial of God na one type of atheism; na explicit atheism; na critical atheism.

As for Huxley, e fit betta small make we leave am; why? Because 'agnostic' no fit tell us whether person believe in God or not; person wey be "agnostic" fit be theist or atheist. IF we look am well well, we go see say agnostic no be option number 3 after (1) theism, and (2) atheism. But e fit become number 3 if and only if (chei, na arithmetic class be dat o) we mis-define atheism.

If we remember as Huxley take do invention for di word "agnostic", all dis go come clear like pure water inside clean nylon bag.
.

@Nimshi,

Thank you for dat observation. However, for the benefit of our brodas make I nak my answer in simple grammar, abi?


So, what was Smith saying again? Let us see:

As a prolegomena, we observe that G. H. Smith was not merely making a case for atheism per se, but rather argued basically for two broad categories which he derived thus: (a) "implicit atheism" [the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it]; and, (b) "explicit atheism" [the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it]. What is the difference? It's simply a matter of whether someone has consciously or unconsciouly rejected belief in God. And it is in the implicit category that Smith assumes that new born babies are atheists. In other words, everyone is made an atheist (implicit or explicit) unless they categorically declare themselves to be 'theists', right?

Now, there is a problem in that idea. Implicit atheism means that people can be called atheists even without their having consciously identified themselves as such - a very unfair and unbalanced ranking. However one looks at it, the simple question here is not so much the types of atheism one assumes; rather, the question here is more about what exactly is atheism itself? Since Smith argues that "atheism is a perspective", then one wonders why he would pronounce a baby an atheist even when that baby hasn't adopted such a perspective for himself/herself?

A second problem with that idea in Smith's is that many people who are not explicit atheists and do not hold theistic beliefs are nonetheless pronounced as atheists. This is erratic, because it forces atheists themselves to a very tight position as to where to place the agnostic. The agnostic originally does not count himself as either theist or atheist - he has not explicitly affirmed that there is no God or gods, nor implicitly affirmed a theistic perspective. Why then would Smith assume that everyone is either an implicit or explicit atheist if they do not believe in God?

The case of Jainism is another example that weakens Smith's definition of atheism. Jains do not believe in God. Yet, Jainism (even though it "lacks belief in a creator God" is not to be misconstrued with any form of atheism - because it is a religion nonetheless, except that it does not believe in God. What does Smith's definition of atheism do with the religion of Jainism that "lacks a belief in God"?

Consequently, how does G. H. Smith reiterate my point already? Simply that, no matter how one looks at it, atheism proper (not the adjectives of "implicit" or "explicit" is not passive, but rather the active commitment to non-belief in God and the supernatural. There is always a conscious denial of the existence of God for someone to qualify as an atheist. To ignore this vital point is why Smith's proposition is weak and has been criticized by other well-informed atheists such as Nagel and Kai.


Ok, na so I see am, but again I fit wrong. Even then, I like how you neatly curve this one for us:

Nimshi:

As for Huxley, e fit betta small make we leave am; why? Because 'agnostic' no fit tell us whether person believe in God or not; person wey be "agnostic" fit be theist or atheist. IF we look am well well, we go see say agnostic no be option number 3 after (1) theism, and (2) atheism. But e fit become number 3 if and only if (chei, na arithmetic class be that o) we mis-define atheism.

Enjoy.

Pilgrim.1,

Can you point me to any of the writings of Nagel about atheism and his critique of Smith? I can seem to find any.

Much oblige, thanks

Dear huxley,

I'm sorry for replying late as I had closed from my shift and headed straight for Church service, then home. I'm going to be off for a few days to enable me prepare for a very crucial exam; hope to be back soon after, and do have a wonderful week.

Like I said earlier:

[list][list]"His arguments against the definitions of atheism held by Smith et al, I have only read in articles."[/list][/list]

You may obtain the gist of the argument of Nagel's definition of atheism and theism in:


Nagel, Ernest (1965). A Defence of Atheism, pg. 460-472 sourced in ~
A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources, 3rd Edition.
Edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (New York: Free Press, 1965).

As it happens, there are several editions of Paul Edwards' Modern Introduction of Philosophy with various pubishing dates - 19[b]57[/b], 19[b]63[/b], 19[b]65[/b], 19[b]66[/b] (Revised Edition), 19[b]72[/b], and 19[b]73[/b]. However, Nagel's definition of a[/b]theism has been repeatedly quoted in other research theses which are available online, and a few examples are:

(1) PDF document: http://www.springerlink.com/content/u8k1410116j31543/fulltext.pdf?page=1
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 17:115-129 (1985)
© 1985 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht. Printed  in  the Netherlands.
MOSES AKIN MAKINDE
Department  of Philosophy,  University of Ire,  Ile-Ife, Nigeria, and Visiting Fulbright  Professor,
Department  of Philosophy, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701

(2) Cambridge Encyclopedia :: Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 7 (an online entry)
[b]atheism - Etymology, Types and typologies of atheism. . . etc

Positive definition: the belief that no deities exist
<snip>
One prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition
of atheism, however, is Ernest Nagel, who considers atheism to be the
rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labelled as explicit atheism,
or anti-theism): "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief,


I hope you will find these few references an excellent help to your request.

Best wishes.

Pilgrim.1,

Thanks for the stuff about Nagel. Most helpful. Seriously, I was unaware of Nagel as a contributor in the area and I thought I was aware of most of the contemporary writers in this subject.

I have placed an order on Amazon for some books in which he is a contributor and can't wait to read his essays on the subject. I shall repond to the rest of your post later, cuz am very bz right now and can only make the odd corsory contribution.

BTW, what exams are you studying for?

Hallo huxley,

Nice to read you here inspite of your busy schedules. Great thing to order those materials - I'm sure not only Nagel would interest you, but you definitely would find quite a few others valuable read along the lines I've been sharing with you. Incidentally, I again browsed through a friend's copy of that same recommended in my reply above (Paul Edwards' Modern Introduction to Philosophy). . my philosophy lecturer has been harping on us to make it one of our handbook in his class.

Oh, thanks for asking - the exams went very well today. That's one down, two more to go later in the week; and then next week 5 papers (one each day of the week).

Warm regards.

If atheism is not a religion, what is it doing in the RELIGION section of the forum
Same goes for evolution. . .

Here is some really interesting recent stuff that has happened to Nagel:

Philosophy prof awarded $900,000 prize
Print this article
Share this article
Published: Friday, September 19, 2008
Thomas Nagel, School of Law professor of philosophy, was awarded the Balzan Prize and approximately $900,000 for his fundamental and innovative contributions to contemporary ethical and moral theory.

Salvatore Veca, vice chairman of the Institute for Advanced Study of Pavia and a member of the Balzan Prize Committee, said Nagel’s work was a major contribution to the discipline of philosophy.

Veca said he found Nagel deserving “for his fundamental and innovative contributions to contemporary ethical theory, relating to both individual, personal choices and collective, social decisions. For the depth and coherence of his original philosophical perspective, which is centered on the essential tension between an objective and subjective point of view.”

Moral philosophy is an area concerned with theories of ethics, but Nagel has created an innovative theory that relates to personal choices and social decisions. The committee said that his philosophical approach answers important questions in contemporary life.

From here : http://www.nyunews.com/news/campus/1.749538

He also wrote some really interesting stuff about consciousness which truly challenges the physicalist/naturalist/atheist position. Provoking the issue that there are proofs that cannot be demonstrated. Ie which are subjective rather than objective.

Here: http://members.aol.com/neonoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

imhotep:

If atheism is not a religion, what is it doing in the RELIGION section of the forum
Same goes for evolution. . .

Lol, @imhotep,

This is a religion section, true. But discussing atheism is contingent on discussing theism. The atheist addresses his questions to the theist, and this might be the most appropriate place to engage in such a dialogue. What do you think?

Pastor AIO:

Here is some really interesting recent stuff that has happened to Nagel:
From here : http://www.nyunews.com/news/campus/1.749538

He also wrote some really interesting stuff about consciousness which truly challenges the physicalist/naturalist/atheist position. Provoking the issue that there are proofs that cannot be demonstrated. Ie which are subjective rather than objective.

Here: http://members.aol.com/neonoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

Em, guys. . . I think we are making a fundamental mistake here that might be worth pointing out. The Nagel I was pointing out to our friend huxley is quite a different one from the above. If we all know that, then no need for this friendly correction.

Ernest Nagel is not to be mistaken for Thomas Nagel. We can do a simple Wiki-search and see the difference:

(1.) Ernest Nagel (Nov. 16, 1901 - Sept. 22, 1985) was a philosopher of science whose definition of atheism is the one I have tried to bring to our attention so far.

(2.) Thomas Nagel (b. July 4, 1937) was also a philosopher; but the difference is that he is a Jewish atheist. This is why we really need to know what Thomas Nagel's position is (by reading his arguments) before we can assume that he was "challenging" the atheist position. Was he? Well, IMHO I don't think so - as an [b]a[/b]theist himself, he maintained a critical analysis of what atheism should be understood to be, and not the simplistic and retired idea advanced by such philosophers as George Smith.

We need to be careful to make such distinctions. It is just like the mistake of someone mixing up the name "Dawkins" for "Hawkings"; or even another one -

~ Stephen Evans (British actor and comedian, b. Nov. 27, 1970)

~ Stephen Evans (58 year old Diplomat and Foreign Affairs specialist on Afghanistan)

~ Stephen Evans (Professor of Life Cycle Engineering).

So, which of the "Stephen Evans" would we be looking at?

The same thing is important here, that we don't confuse the a[/b]theists sharing the name [b]Nagel ~ either Thomas Nagel or Ernest Nagel.

pilgrim.1:

Lol, @imhotep,

This is a religion section, true. But discussing atheism is contingent on discussing theism. The atheist addresses his questions to the theist, and this might be the most appropriate place to engage in such a dialogue. What do you think?

My problem is that while the theists develop their own belief systems independently, the atheists are so [b]insecure [/b]that they INISIST on bringing down theisitic systems before they feel good about themselves. Absurd!!

I have challenged all the atheists on this forum to disprove the existence of God, its been 8 months now . . . no response. I wonder what the hell they are talking about if they cannot disprove the existence of God (or other spirits).

pilgrim.1:

Em, guys. . . I think we are making a fundamental mistake here that might be worth pointing out. The Nagel I was pointing out to our friend huxley is quite a different one from the above. If we all know that, then no need for this friendly correction.

Ernest Nagel is not to be mistaken for Thomas Nagel. We can do a simple Wiki-search and see the difference:

(1.) Ernest Nagel (Nov. 16, 1901 - Sept. 22, 1985) was a philosopher of science whose definition of atheism is the one I have tried to bring to our attention so far.

(2.) Thomas Nagel (b. July 4, 1937) was also a philosopher; but the difference is that he is a Jewish atheist. This is why we really need to know what Thomas Nagel's position is (by reading his arguments) before we can assume that he was "challenging" the atheist position. Was he? Well, IMHO I don't think so - as an [b]a[/b]theist himself, he maintained a critical analysis of what atheism should be understood to be, and not the simplistic and retired idea advanced by such philosophers as George Smith.

We need to be careful to make such distinctions. It is just like the mistake of someone mixing up the name "Dawkins" for "Hawkings"; or even another one -

~ Stephen Evans (British actor and comedian, b. Nov. 27, 1970)

~ Stephen Evans (58 year old Diplomat and Foreign Affairs specialist on Afghanistan)

~ Stephen Evans (Professor of Life Cycle Engineering).

So, which of the "Stephen Evans" would we be looking at?

The same thing is important here, that we don't confuse the a[/b]theists sharing the name [b]Nagel ~ either Thomas Nagel or Ernest Nagel.

Gee, Thanks for that.

I know Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but he is what I call an honest Atheist. He addresses the issue of things such as consciousness and shows that it challenges the atheist position. Challenging your position is also being called critical thinking, which is different from attacking the position, and which is also something that I encourage religious people to do too. Or, in my dreams, I wish religious people could be more critical of their own positions.

My dear imhotep,

Calm down broderly. . . calm down, lol.  Me sef I don vex like you before, until God dealt with my heart and showed me there is a better way: and that is, to enter into a rational dialogue with them. I know, it is not as easy as it sounds, and that is quite humbling, because we don't know everything. Yet, I have known quite a number of people who are atheistically inclined who are quite reasonable when they get to know for a fact that Christians are not irrational "eggheads". That is why it should not come as a surprise to so many of us that there are some people who describe themselves as theistic atheists - atheists who are inclined to believe in some "God" of sorts.

imhotep:

My problem is that while the theists develop their own belief systems independently, the atheists are so [b]insecure [/b]that they INISIST on bringing down theisitic systems before they feel good about themselves. Absurd!!

No, imhotep, not all of them 'insist' that is the default situation. I'm not trying to placate or compromise with atheistic persuasions; but the fact is that there are so many that are atheistically inclined and yet very reasonable people - so many of them (to my surprise). The problem is that the most irrational ones among them who have access to the media at large drive their extremisms to make a bad case for atheism indeed. These others are a small group - and they make the most unintelligible noise ever! Yet, you will find that these men are a constant embarrassment to their group, as not so many are inclined to applaud their rants - an example:

           Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher
           ~~ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/01/scidawkin101.xml)

I think we can accommodate the thin line here, which is that we should be careful to not generalize. One poorly thinking theist does not mean that every theist is an egghead. We can reason with them and take on the issues they present in a very amicable and intelligent manner - this is what makes so many of them interested in what we have to say.

imhotep:

I have challenged all the atheists on this forum to disprove the existence of God, its been 8 months now . . . no response. I wonder what the hell they are talking about if they cannot disprove the existence of God (or other spirits).

Hmm, . . well, I'm not so sure that I can "prove" God's existence either. Let me explain: "proof" is not the same thing as "logic". I can provide the logical explanation for the existence of God: this is like saying, I can't show you God to your naked eyes, but I can show you WHY His existence cannot be discounted.

On the other hand, such thinkers as Thomas Nagel (himself an atheist) have argued that atheists should be careful to argue that God does not exist! No one can "prove" that He does not exist, as no one can supply "proof" that He does. The question lies in the type of proof that people are asking for. Mathematical proofs only tend to theorems, not "proof" in the same way as spiritual matters are investigated. Thus, one can "prove" that the sum of angles in a triangle amounts to 180°. There are mathematical theorems for such "proofs".

But what kind of theorems can one apply to negate spiritual realities? Since some rationalists are too embarrassed to admit that there exists no such theorems for investigating such phenomena, they generally tend to deny those realities. What their arguments amount to is simply using logic to make imploding statements (ie., assertions that suddenly collapse upon the person who is making such arguments).

Phew! I didn't want to go on this far; but my point is that we should not be so angry with these guys. Some will listen, some will not. Those who listen will ask further intelligent questions, and we should never assume that we know all the answers. What we can do is invite them to a dialogue such that they would have the oportunity to look inward at their own assumptions and see that in so many ways, they often do not have a handle on their persuasions.

@ Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Gee, Thanks for that.

Pastor AIO:

I know Thomas Nagel is an atheist, but he is what I call an honest Atheist. He addresses the issue of things such as consciousness and shows that it challenges the atheist position. Challenging your position is also being called critical thinking, which is different from attacking the position, and which is also something that I encourage religious people to do too. Or, in my dreams, I wish religious people could be more critical of their own positions.

Your point well noted. Thanks again.