David Gleeson over at exchristian.net wants to correct common misconceptions about atheism. Unfortunately he ends up perpetuating a major misconception of his own, and also messes up a little Greek. Commenting on the very first alleged misconception, he says:
1. Atheism is the belief that no gods exist.
This statement’s ubiquity is exceeded only by its utter falseness; not only is it misleading, but it is the complete opposite of the truth.
The word ‘atheism’ comes from the Greek prefix ‘a’, meaning without, and ‘theist’, meaning having a belief in a supernatural deity. Atheism, therefore, literally means “without theistic belief”. Atheism does not positively assert anything; rather, it is a statement of withheld belief.
Atheists, therefore, do not positively assert that gods do not exist. Atheists simply withhold belief in said gods because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the belief. This is not to say that there isn’t sufficient reason to believe that certain gods do not exist. There is. But to categorically deny the existence of all gods would require a leap of faith that is anathema to a true atheist. Atheism requires no such leap.
I’ll start with the way that the writer gets his Greek wrong. “Theist” is an English word. It is a word derived from the Greek word theos, which means god. A theist refers to a person who believes that there is a god – not a person who believes that there is a theist (who who believes that theism exists). Similarly, polytheist is an english word made from two Greek roots: polu means “many,” so a polytheist believes that there are many gods – not that there are many theists or many theisms (this would be to confuse Greek and English, since theist and theism are an English words). The Greek prefix a means “no” or “not.” When affixed to Greek nouns, it indicates a denial of that noun. For example, something is amorphous if it has no shape (morphe is the Greek word for shape). Ablepsia is another name for blindness, and it means no sight (a means “no” and blepsis means “sight”). Nobody versed in linguistics (or Greek) would ever doubt this, so Mr Gleeson has simply made a mistake. The English word Atheism, based on its Greek derivation, does not mean “no theism” or “not theism.” Like theism and polytheism, atheism refers to a belief, namely the belief that there is no (a) God (theos).
So he has his Greek wrong.
Secondly however, Mr Gleeson quite misleads his readers by implying that the claim that atheists deny the existence of God is the opposite of the truth. There’s a good reason that the claim is “ubiquitous” as Mr Gleeson complains. It’s a common claim because it represents an historical fact. The claim is pretty simple to document, as I have done before, but a timely reminder is always, well, timely. Here’s what the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy says in it’s entry for atheism:
Atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.
Mr Gleeson might like the “widely used sense,” because it is epistemically weaker (i.e. it means he doesn’t have to defend anything) and because it’s common among sceptical bloggers for that reason. But the fact remains, it’s not what the word strictly means (notice too how the Greek derivation is explained in the above quote).
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says in its entry for atheism and agnosticism that “‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” The more general resource Encyclopedia Britannica says:
Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.
The entry for “Atheism” in the Routledge Enclyclopedia of Philosophy says: “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.” When Antony Flew, back in his non-theist days, argued for “weak atheism,” namely the belief that theism ought not be affirmed, he did so while quite honestly and openly admitting that “weak atheism” is not the regular meaning of “atheism,” hence the need to add the qualifier “weak.”
So like David Gleeson, I wish people would stop perpetuating misconceptions about what atheism is and is not. Unlike Mr Gleeson however, I’m aware that he is one of the guilty parties.
Glenn Peoples
Similar Posts:
- Penn Jillette: Magician. Comedian. Nitwit.
- Aquinas and the alleged "presumption of atheism"
- Are Christians Nearly Atheists?
- Could atheism be a properly basic belief?
- The Great Pumpkin Objection
- Tyndale on Hades
Tags: atheism
I can justly say that your prior rejection then is based on your established assumptions that your exposure to ALL the evidence is absolute. This is problem #1.
Additionally, just because you may have heard some piece of evidence and failed to find it convincing is really of no consequence. Others may _have_ found it convincing. A question arises – why do some people look at the same evidence and come to such dramatically different conclusions about the nature of reality? The problem is not the evidence necessarily, but the manner of thinking. Let me demonstrate. You said,
Problem #2: Your appeal to a consensus for your declaration of reality. Erroneous! Consensus has shifted positions thousands of times during the course of human history, and at each turn we learn that we were wrong after all. Hence, the radical reliance *MERELY* on consensus to give you truth is untrustworthy. The arguments need to be taken on their own merits. You, furthermore, want an official position on a God hypothesis, which is a bit naive. Appeal to a consensus basically says ‘I want others to do my thinking for me, and since my inner inclinations are well aligned with the consensus anyway, I feel good about my position.’
Problem #3: You expect *scientifically* verifiable detection of a supernatural event. If you think about this a bit you will see how foolish this sounds. How would you ever detect something like that? Science relies on a radical reliance on methodological naturalism. As such, EVERY effect is expected a NATURAL cause at the outset. You see the problem? Naturalism is assumed in order to do science, and if we want to find only natural causes then this would suffice. The problem comes into play when natural observations lead to radical philosophically unrealistic and fallacious arguments (i.e. the universe created itself…LOL). Science gives you nothing but brute data…numbers, functions and laws. Your worldview is what interprets that data. This is the reason why some of the most brilliant scientists in the world can do brilliant science and are still convinced of the existence of God, and ironically in many cases it is their scientific pursuit that has brought them to that conclusion, not religion.
Problem #4: Your identification of supernatural as that which *has to* necessarily be outside the laws of nature. I realize the definition appeals to that, but in the Bible for instance there are numerous “supernatural” events that don’t really supersede the laws of nature. What makes them “supernatural” (unfortunate term) is that they appear at very specific times for very specific reasons to actualize a very specific end.
Being objective means that you evaluate the evidence for its own sake and not try to mold it to your expectations. The bottom line is this: you have already set up a failed experiment in your mind. With this set of requirements, your persistence in your positions is a virtual guarantee. Congratulations! You get to keep the positions you currently have and *WANT*, but perhaps at the cost of truth. Do you really do want to know the truth, even if it means that you may be wrong?
If you’re willing to take an objective look at the evidence, I propose you look at the universe itself. Have you considered the cosmological argument for God? Do you not see how God would be a necessity to have something instead of nothing at all?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why do people come to different conclusions based on the same evidence? One answer is that there are goats and sheep, those who are more skeptical and those who are more gullible.
Unless I personally experience it, I’m not likely to believe a supernatural event occurred unless it’s verified by multiple reliable news sources or by scientific reports. If a magician is involved I might need magicians to do the testing. Lacking that kind of confirmation I will probably judge that the people affirming the supernatural event are mistaken.
I wouldn’t call my method naive, but practical. Unless I’m personally involved in the study of the phenomenon then I’m going to rely on current scientific understanding.
Although currently science assumes nothing supernatural occurs because supernatural hypotheses have not been fruitful, I can assure you that if many dead Christians were reliably reported to be rising from the graves then there would be scientists trying to take measurements and testing hypotheses, even the Christian God hypothesis.
Theism is a tenacious belief. Even brilliant scientists can succumb to its siren song.
There are mysteries about cosmology which leave the door open for a God of the Gaps, but I don’t consider God to be necessary or actual. Also, I expect that the persons who will be given credit for answering these cosmological mysteries by the history books of the distant future won’t be mere theologians, but they will be people who understood the underlying science.
About things that science has something to say I suggest you rely on science over religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you claiming that no one skeptical has believed in God? You can’t mean that. I, for one, would be the prime example of someone who has. That claim is false. The answer is there are those who simply do NOT *want* to believe.
As Glenn has repeatedly pointed out, your epistemological understanding is much to be desired. You can come to know truths in many ways. You don’t need reporters covering a specific event to know that it happened.
Once again, you are assigning your own expectations on what that evidence is supposed to look like and how we can detect it.
…or atheism is a tenacious belief and even brilliant scientists can succumb to its siren song.
So, you would cater to the science of the gaps? I will agree that science has gaps and many of those gaps will get filled in. But you see what you’re doing here? You’re not making an inference to the best possible explanation, but *BY BLIND FAITH* awaiting for human achievement to eradicate any need for God. Alternately, those who actually take an objective look at the evidence know the limits of nature and do take the inference to the best possible explanation. As I suspected, you are not after truth, but your interest lies in simply eradicating religion. As such, you grandiose claims that Glenn make room for your brand of atheism, is now null and void.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘mysteries in cosmology’ The way I see it, the universe began to exist, sprang into existence out of nowhere. There is NO natural solution to this problem. And, even if there were, it does NOT solve the age old question of the first mover. With naturalism the nonsensical infinite regress is inescapable.
I’m speaking from experience – the best thing you can do in life is to be honest with yourself! I wish you luck, and whether you want me to or not, I will pray for you, Powell. Take care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are skeptical theists and gullible atheists, but atheists on average are more skeptical than theists.
There are kinds of “spiritual” evidence currently discredited by science because they have not proven themselves to be reliable. If that were to change then you’d find scientists including them in their reports as support.
Mysteries become solved when you have the answer. I expect science rather than religion to fill the gaps by providing the most reliable answers, “the inference to the best possible answer” as you put it.
Questions like “What happened before the universe?” might be like the question “What’s north of the North Pole?” We should rely on science to guide our understanding about things like time and space and motion rather than relying on mere common sense and philosophical musings.
I’m not asking Glenn to make room for my brand of atheism. I’m the kind of person he thinks deserves the moniker. I’m asking him to make room for the would-be atheists who are pressured by dictionary definitions to choose a different name.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Glenn,
What I initially saw as inconsistent no longer seems so. AFAICT, it’s proper for a rational person to both
1) consider that each of their beliefs is true (otherwise they wouldn’t believe them)
and
2) concede that probably some of their beliefs are false since they’re fallible without being able to specify which ones those are (otherwise they wouldn’t believe them).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0