[split] Definitions of Atheism

[Angrboda]

I think it would be helpful if there were an additional confirmation dialog between the posting submission and actually posting the comment, such that the user would be more likely to recognize the import of their actions. I don't know how possible or impossible this would be under myBB however.


As long as we're on the age old question, a few observations. First, lexicography has historically been in the control of theists who, it seems, tended to use the "denies the existence of" language in definition of the word atheist in English language dictionaries. While in theory, dictionaries are simply descriptive tools, they're often used in a proscriptive manner and definitions motivated by concerns other than usage can and have impacted the language all on their own.

Beyond that, I think that when people refer to "atheism" they may not all be referring to the same thing, especially when talking to theists. An atheist may be thinking specifically of atheism as either a statement of belief or a "philosophical" position, and, as noted, a person can embrace either skepticism or anti-theism in addition to atheism as a lack of belief (and skepticism isn't a unified position, either; you have people who are skeptical of ghosts and ESP, but not of alternative medicine claims like healing magnets). A theist may, in particular, be looking at the social dimension of how people who are atheists express themselves socially. The possibilities and realities in this area have been made all too visible by the Atheist+ movement. There is a sense in which atheism is both a position on the existence of gods, but also a social movement or peer group. I think it's a valid observation that there is more going on with a typical atheist than just "lack of belief," at least in a self-consciously atheist person. However, to the best of my understanding and knowledge, the psychological and sociological concepts and constructs for describing such a dimension do not exist at this time, so we're left dealing with the question in terms of the language of belief, and an anthropologically oriented "self-description," in which members of a group have privileged status in terms of defining group membership. Perhaps eventually, we'll have a better way of characterizing these things, but for now, I suspect that the lack of belief language is the best and most robust description available. For now, the paradigm of "belief" is the most natural and defensible model for describing atheists, and I suspect, that attempting to get a handle on additional dimensions of atheism while remaining within the paradigm of "belief" will be futile; lack of belief is likely the best we can do given this particular psychological conceptual framework.

(I'll respond briefly to Mister Agenda's ghost to point out that, particularly in the Eastern world, there are major religious traditions which either do not postulate something which could be labeled a god, or, if the gods exist, they do not occupy a central role in the affairs of believers. Henotheism is an additional problem. However, many of these religions accept the existence of metaphysical postulates and phenomena which would readily attract the label of supernatural belief.)

(ETA: A minor observation. When people talk about "supernatural" in relation to atheism, and specifically in relation to atheists who define their atheism as rejection of the supernatural, the term "supernatural" achieves a breadth of scope it seldom does in ordinary usage. Typically supernatural is a modifying property of a specific proposition or concept, like ghosts or ESP. However, its usage in discussing atheism is much more inclusive and ill-defined, such that even unnamed beliefs fall under the umbrella, whether enumerated or not. In particular, beyond the fact that this trends towards a breed of scientism in practice, and includes an undesirable indexical, the change of usage of the word "supernatural" suggests to me that there's more here than meets the eye.)