I think it’s always important to think about whether we are debating something real or something that has to do with semantics. At the end of the day we cannot prove a definition, so when discussing semantics we’re really more-so debating which definition is more practical or which is more common. It can be valid to have those discussions, but it’s often better to agree to disagree on terms and focus on reality itself.
I do agree with Oppy’s definition of atheism here though. I think it is more practical to define atheism as endorsing the position that “God or gods do not exist” than merely as “the lack of belief in God or gods”. The former is far more useful because it is the only way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, lest the word “agnostic” lose its meaning. It does not matter what we want to call it, but we have to distinguish between people who believe no gods exist and those who don’t know whether gods exist.
I also think we need more distinctions between different kinds of agnostics. I like how Oppy has the term “innocent”. I would personally rather say “innocent agnostic” and say infants are a type of agnostic, but again that’s more semantic. I also do think we need to distinguish between agnostics who think it’s impossible to prove either atheism or theism and those who simply do not know and think it may be possible to prove one way or the other.
The CCC definition seems to state that agnostics think it’s impossible to prove one way or the other, but I’m not that kind of agnostic—perhaps I just haven’t studied a particular argument enough. I don’t know what we should name these different agnostics—perhaps “positive” (impossible to prove) vs. “negative” (open to the possibility) agnostics? So then I’d say there are innocent agnostics, positive agnostics, and negative agnostics!
Atheism is a very logical, subjective reaction to the wildly inconsistent, non nonsensical - sequitur
written by men about metaphysical unknowns. Had Moses or whomever composed Genesis, KNEW of evolution’s theoretical, scientific impact on humanities understanding of itself, there would be no such ugly entity as Original Sin. In the mind of atheists, good gods do not create a ‘vale of tears’ habitat then declare it all “good” – last time they saw it, anyway – then blame the mortal and defective species they created, holding the bag until they get around to sending a redeemer. This has nothing to do with a lack of faith on their part, but a ludicrous affront on the rational mind. In other words, change the narrative and you’d end up with at worse, a world of agnostics. To think for one moment that ‘atheists’ don’t draw upon hope and charity in their heart of hearts to get them through a day is to separate them from the DNA that binds us all.
Great article. I'm sympathetic to your analysis. Another great resource on this would be Paul Draper's (another leading defender of Atheism) article on Atheism and Agnosticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy where he writes:
"In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well."
Draper also further outlines why the "metaphysical definition" of Atheist out to be preferred over most common definitions, especially in the context of philosophy:
"The next question, then, is why the standard metaphysical definition of “atheism” is especially useful for doing philosophy. One obvious reason is that it has the virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Does God exist?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism in the metaphysical sense. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, and “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question (cf. Le Poidevin 2010: 8). It is useful for philosophers to have a good name for this important metaphysical position, and “atheism” works beautifully for that purpose. Of course, it may also be useful on occasion to have a term to refer to all people who lack theistic belief, but as noted above philosophers already have such a term, namely, “nontheist”, so the term “atheist” is not needed for that purpose."
Another point to add, I think it is instructive to think of beliefs in terms of probabilities, in that when someone says Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, this doesn't entail that a person thinks that there are now 100% certain that no God exists. One reason that many people are hesitant to take on the philosophical understanding of Atheism is that they think it commits them to a very strong position on Atheism. But this is incorrect, to simply believe Atheism is true, is to say that you think it is more *probable than not* that Atheism is true, with the probabilities being different based on the strength of your Atheism. This view is pretty inclusive. For example, you can be someone like Oppy who thinks that the "Pr (T) [probability of Theism] ‘is so low that it approximates to zero’"
Or you could be a more temperate Atheist, who thinks that the epistemic probability of Atheism is about 60% or 65% true relative to the. The main thing is that belief in Atheism doesn't imply any measure of certainty and I think the same thing would apply to Theism as well.
Before we can define the word “atheist” we need to understand how an atheist defines God.
We need to find a workable definition of God or at least agree on characteristics that we can attribute to God.
The term “The Creator of heaven and Earth” comes to my mind. I see at least four basic characteristics that are necessary. The creator must have self-awareness. The creator must have infinite intelligence. The creator must have the will to create. The creator must have the power to create.
An atheist is someone who cannot or will not accept that such a being exists.
I think it’s always important to think about whether we are debating something real or something that has to do with semantics. At the end of the day we cannot prove a definition, so when discussing semantics we’re really more-so debating which definition is more practical or which is more common. It can be valid to have those discussions, but it’s often better to agree to disagree on terms and focus on reality itself.
I do agree with Oppy’s definition of atheism here though. I think it is more practical to define atheism as endorsing the position that “God or gods do not exist” than merely as “the lack of belief in God or gods”. The former is far more useful because it is the only way to distinguish between an atheist and an agnostic, lest the word “agnostic” lose its meaning. It does not matter what we want to call it, but we have to distinguish between people who believe no gods exist and those who don’t know whether gods exist.
I also think we need more distinctions between different kinds of agnostics. I like how Oppy has the term “innocent”. I would personally rather say “innocent agnostic” and say infants are a type of agnostic, but again that’s more semantic. I also do think we need to distinguish between agnostics who think it’s impossible to prove either atheism or theism and those who simply do not know and think it may be possible to prove one way or the other.
The CCC definition seems to state that agnostics think it’s impossible to prove one way or the other, but I’m not that kind of agnostic—perhaps I just haven’t studied a particular argument enough. I don’t know what we should name these different agnostics—perhaps “positive” (impossible to prove) vs. “negative” (open to the possibility) agnostics? So then I’d say there are innocent agnostics, positive agnostics, and negative agnostics!
Atheism is a very logical, subjective reaction to the wildly inconsistent, non nonsensical - sequitur
written by men about metaphysical unknowns. Had Moses or whomever composed Genesis, KNEW of evolution’s theoretical, scientific impact on humanities understanding of itself, there would be no such ugly entity as Original Sin. In the mind of atheists, good gods do not create a ‘vale of tears’ habitat then declare it all “good” – last time they saw it, anyway – then blame the mortal and defective species they created, holding the bag until they get around to sending a redeemer. This has nothing to do with a lack of faith on their part, but a ludicrous affront on the rational mind. In other words, change the narrative and you’d end up with at worse, a world of agnostics. To think for one moment that ‘atheists’ don’t draw upon hope and charity in their heart of hearts to get them through a day is to separate them from the DNA that binds us all.
Great article. I'm sympathetic to your analysis. Another great resource on this would be Paul Draper's (another leading defender of Atheism) article on Atheism and Agnosticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy where he writes:
"In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
Draper also further outlines why the "metaphysical definition" of Atheist out to be preferred over most common definitions, especially in the context of philosophy:
"The next question, then, is why the standard metaphysical definition of “atheism” is especially useful for doing philosophy. One obvious reason is that it has the virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Does God exist?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism in the metaphysical sense. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, and “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question (cf. Le Poidevin 2010: 8). It is useful for philosophers to have a good name for this important metaphysical position, and “atheism” works beautifully for that purpose. Of course, it may also be useful on occasion to have a term to refer to all people who lack theistic belief, but as noted above philosophers already have such a term, namely, “nontheist”, so the term “atheist” is not needed for that purpose."
Another point to add, I think it is instructive to think of beliefs in terms of probabilities, in that when someone says Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, this doesn't entail that a person thinks that there are now 100% certain that no God exists. One reason that many people are hesitant to take on the philosophical understanding of Atheism is that they think it commits them to a very strong position on Atheism. But this is incorrect, to simply believe Atheism is true, is to say that you think it is more *probable than not* that Atheism is true, with the probabilities being different based on the strength of your Atheism. This view is pretty inclusive. For example, you can be someone like Oppy who thinks that the "Pr (T) [probability of Theism] ‘is so low that it approximates to zero’"
https://philosophy-of-religion.eu/index.php/ejpr/article/download/388/359/553
Or you could be a more temperate Atheist, who thinks that the epistemic probability of Atheism is about 60% or 65% true relative to the. The main thing is that belief in Atheism doesn't imply any measure of certainty and I think the same thing would apply to Theism as well.
Before we can define the word “atheist” we need to understand how an atheist defines God.
We need to find a workable definition of God or at least agree on characteristics that we can attribute to God.
The term “The Creator of heaven and Earth” comes to my mind. I see at least four basic characteristics that are necessary. The creator must have self-awareness. The creator must have infinite intelligence. The creator must have the will to create. The creator must have the power to create.
An atheist is someone who cannot or will not accept that such a being exists.