Category Archives: Atheist Movement
January 20, 2015 – 12:30 pm
I am calling this ongoing series “Bad Atheism” because it is simple, provocative, and because I am too lazy to think of different titles for every post I am going to make on what I see as wrong with modern atheist thinking. “Part X” is just so much simpler. Additionally, in case anyone was wondering, I have no clue about how long this series will be going, or all the different things I will write about. I just wanted a nice catch-all for any potential topic I may get inspired to write about.
I really dislike the common “lack of belief” definition of atheism. You hear it all the time, and it usually goes something like this, “atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in God or gods.” There are a few different things I find annoying about this definition, and here I will attempt to list them.
First though, a preliminary note: the definitions of words are not set in stone. There is no great dictionary-in-the-sky that makes some words only have a certain definition or definitions. So, herein I am not trying to argue for the “correct” definition of atheism, and likewise, I do not take any “but this is THE definition of atheism” argument seriously. Even if someone points out the whole, “atheism is a-theism, the a- means without, therefore, it is simply without theism” breakdown of the word itself, I do not find that convincing, as we go against what a word, when broken down, literally means all the time. For instance, when sportscasters speak of a team “decimating” another team, they are speaking of them really beating the other team, not literally killing 1/10th of the players on the other team. Long story short, arguments about definitions of words should be about what definitions will be more useful and/or meaningful than other ones, not just saying there is A definition that we have to follow.
With that out of the way, I want to briefly sketch out what I find annoying about the “lack of belief” definition of atheism. Among the reasons that I can think of at the top of my head, here are some which I will deal with in order:
- The definition is psychologically untenable for the most part for adult humans
- The definition makes the atheist “position” no different from a cat’s or a rock’s
- We do not normally define ourselves by mere lack of a belief in something
- I suspect that there is a dishonest motive behind the definition, to dodge atheism’s “burden of proof”
The “lack of belief” definition is psychologically untenable because it really doesn’t match how human minds work. After we have heard a claim X, we cannot then just lack a belief about that claim X. Sure, we can lack a belief that claim X is true, but we still possess some belief about X. That belief does not necessarily have to be “I believe that X is not true”, but at the very least it is, “I believe that claim X has insufficient evidence to justify me believing that it is true”. We may not explicitly hold those beliefs, but surely, we do not just have a vacuum in our minds about subjects we have heard before, especially when it is a claim as ubiquitous as God claims.
The “lack of belief” definition makes the atheist “position” no different from a cat’s or rock’s because they too lack positive belief in a God. Now, should we actually label them as atheists? That would seem silly, wouldn’t it? That is because there is more going on then simply lacking belief in God claims. For humans, they can be labeled atheists, as opposed to rocks, because humans have minds to process God claims. But if that is the case, if the fact that we have minds matter, then the way our minds really work in regards to claims we have heard also matters, so lack of belief doesn’t really work any more.
We do not normally define ourselves by our mere lack of belief in a claim. We do not go about calling ourselves “aunicornists” or “a-9/11conspiracytheory-ists” or stuff like that. So obviously, mere not believing in a claim doesn’t make a label we normally use. Rather, if we do use the word atheist to signify not believing in God claims it is because our culture somewhat imposes that belief on us, so we set up the word “atheist” in opposition to that. If there were a culture pushing belief in the tooth fairy all the time, we may need a word to define our not believing in that claim. That is because it is the cultural situation and our opposition to it that matters, not the mere lack of belief in something.
I suspect that there is a dishonest motive behind the definition, to dodge atheism’s “burden of proof.” It seems to me that in defining atheism as simply “lacking belief” in God claims, that people are trying to set up atheism as a non-position, and as such, requiring no justification. To them, it is all on the theist, the only person making a claim to them, to meet a burden of proof. Well that seems convenient, doesn’t it? It seems too good to be true because it is. As I pointed out in the first point, we do not just lack a position about a claim we have heard, especially one like God-claims. Additionally, most atheists or other scientifically minded people will not accept just lacking belief in something as reasonable.
For instance, would we accept a climate change denier’s mere lack of being convinced by the science? Of course not! We would say that they SHOULD be convinced by the scientific evidence, if they were being reasonable about it. They cannot just throw up their hands and say something like their position is just lacking belief that climate change is real, and that is all they have to do, that the burden of proof is all on the scientists, and they have failed to meet it. If that approach were at all reasonable, anyone could deny anything and just say someone has failed to meet their burden. The fact is that the climate scientists have met their burden, and as such, any person who denies that is actually being unreasonable. They cannot just hide behind “lack of belief” climate denial anymore, because that so-called “lack of belief” is unreasonable. If they want their claim that the climate scientists have failed to meet their burden of proof to be taken seriously, they have to give reasons why the climate scientists have failed to meet their burden. That is because that is a positive claim that someone is making, that the other side has failed to meet their burden, and as such, it begs justification.
So at best what we have is a weak claim like, “theists have failed to meet their burden of proof in regards to God” but then notice that it is now on the atheist to give reasons why that claim is true. They cannot just assert it and expect people to take their claim “on faith”. Speaking of faith, maybe that will be my next topic, if I feel up to it.
What do you think? Think I am on to something, or that I am dead wrong?
Also, this is a relevant post by William Lane Craig on the topic: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism
| Permalink |
January 19, 2015 – 6:20 am
I intend this to be a semi-short post, as it is just something that has been on my mind lately, but nothing that I will pretend to be original. It really annoys me that some atheists feel comfortable with using the language and ideas of social justice movements to point out that there is pronounced Religious–specifically Christian–privilege in the US, but then failing to use the same reasoning to point out male or straight or white or cis, etc, privilege in the US as well. Even worse is that when you point such things out those atheists often get dismissive and/or hostile. Male privilege in the US, or Dawkins-forbid, Atheism? No way–especially in Atheism. We are the enlightened bunch, right?
Of course, the idea that women have full equality in the US, much less in Atheism, is just silly, and I am not going to waste time or space here attempting to demonstrate why I say that. Those who deny the existence of male privilege will deny any facts I bring up, and those who accept the idea don’t need me to produce more facts. What I will say is that atheism is really missing out when they do not accept feminism and related movements(let’s call it “Intersectional Feminism” or IF. I did not think of this name myself). The reason they are missing out is because they are right in pointing out religious privilege in the US, but they could craft a much more powerful, effective, and true message if they tied religious privilege into the IF thinking.
For instance, merely pointing out the religious oppression aspect of anti-abortion movements misses out on all the other aspects of what motivates it. It is more than just the privilege of fundamentalist religion, it is oppression of women, of people of color, of poor people, etc. If you want to fight against anti-abortion movements, why only attack it from one angle when you can attack from many? You not only craft a much more effective message, but you tap into the vast literature surrounding the issue, and into the vast resources of people who are already fighting that fight. Even other more narrowly atheist issues like church-state separation, or creationism being taught in public schools, have other social justice aspects of it that one can tap into.
Now, to be clear, the most important thing about atheist denial of other social justice realities is that it does real harm, by propagating those forms of oppression, and by neglecting to fight against them. That said, I think that another important point to bring up is that not only is it intellectually inconsistent to use social justice tools and thinking in atheism and deny other forms of privilege and oppression, but that Atheism is really missing out on stuff that can advance their own goals much further. I am glad to see that there are many who do get this, but I wish it were more.
| Permalink |