I really do hate to bring this issue up again. At the same time, I find it necessary if only to reconcile an intellectual acceptance of the atheist position and a lingering discomfort with the same. Previously I have publicly apologized for not accepting the AF consensus definition of atheism as only the lack of belief in god(s). My mistake had been to confuse atheism per se with atheistic philosophies like ontological naturalism.
My discomfort stems from my belief that ideas have consequences. The simple act of defining something places it in relationship with other meanings within the cultural context of the definer. That is a basic principle of semiotics. Dictionary definitions are fine in themselves as long as we remember that they are cultural artifacts that enforce homogeny under the pretense objectivity. As it relates specifically to atheism, I believe that in Western culture it is impossible to disentangle the lack of belief in god(s) from the realization of that idea as the rejection of the spiritual experiences of the divine in oneself and others.
By way of analogy, my belief that horses not a food source (a uniquely American attitude) remains passive until I am presented with a plate of horse meat and I actively reject it in disgust. Something important is missing by failing to consider that simply holding a specific belief, like ‘horses are not a food source’ fosters a disposition in the person holding the belief.
Spiritual experiences of the divine are a common and normal part of the human experience. Fitting those into our model of how the world works depends on how people tag those experiences. The atheist, acting in accordance with disbelief, rejects attributing these extraordinary states to divine influence. What I am saying is that within Western culture there is no conceptual vacuum in which atheism is the default position; atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.
My discomfort stems from my belief that ideas have consequences. The simple act of defining something places it in relationship with other meanings within the cultural context of the definer. That is a basic principle of semiotics. Dictionary definitions are fine in themselves as long as we remember that they are cultural artifacts that enforce homogeny under the pretense objectivity. As it relates specifically to atheism, I believe that in Western culture it is impossible to disentangle the lack of belief in god(s) from the realization of that idea as the rejection of the spiritual experiences of the divine in oneself and others.
By way of analogy, my belief that horses not a food source (a uniquely American attitude) remains passive until I am presented with a plate of horse meat and I actively reject it in disgust. Something important is missing by failing to consider that simply holding a specific belief, like ‘horses are not a food source’ fosters a disposition in the person holding the belief.
Spiritual experiences of the divine are a common and normal part of the human experience. Fitting those into our model of how the world works depends on how people tag those experiences. The atheist, acting in accordance with disbelief, rejects attributing these extraordinary states to divine influence. What I am saying is that within Western culture there is no conceptual vacuum in which atheism is the default position; atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.
