The works cited here are all specialized reference materials designed not to provide general information for a general audience but, rather, information on specific topics like religion, sociology, or other social sciences. Their value here is in the fact that they provide insight into what scholars from different fields think of when it comes to the concept of atheism.
Read Article: Definition of Atheism in Reference Books
Austin:
Can you clarify something? The first definition you provide is from the New Dictionary of Relgions. The part I’m confused about includes this:
Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of any Gods or of God. This may take the form of: … (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, irrational, or meaningless.
When I read this, I assumed they were simply describing the agnostic atheist: Someone whose atheism is based on their agnostic stance (Lack of knowledge is my reason for disbelief). The flip side would be the agnostic theist (Although there is a lack of knowledge, I’m still going to believe it).
Your comment was: “the above definition incorrectly regards agnosticism as distinct from theism and most forms of atheism…”
On the one hand I view agnosticism as distinct from atheism/theism in that it regards knowledge rather than belief. On the other hand, I regard it as linked to atheism in that a lack of information (“knowledge”) is inherently the basis for many people’s disbelief. At any rate, I’m not sure I got your meaning with regard to this statement? Can you expand on the above quote? (I just feel like I missed something relevant. But maybe it’s just because I haven’t had my coffee yet?)
Thanks!
I’m not sure my question above is clear. The definition seems to be connecting atheism to agnosticism–in a way I thought was correct–even though the two are distinct from one another (aren’t they?). But you seem to be saying you aren’t reading it that way. Is that right?
Tracie: You are correct that agnosticism is “distinct from atheism/theism in that it regards knowledge rather than belief.” This is why agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism – every agnostic is also either an atheist or a theist. The definition in question, though, seems to me to exclude this.
For example, it suggests that “dogmatic rejection of…theism” is incompatible with agnosticism, but must it be? I can say that something is unknowable and still dogmatically reject believing it (maybe that’s unwise, but it’s not a logical contradiction). Where in the definition is there any indication that agnosticism and theism are compatible? The definition suggests that agnosticism is a form of atheism, which is incompatible with theism.
That’s the problem: agnosticism is not a form of atheism, although agnostic atheism may be the most common way both atheism agnosticism appear in America.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into the definition – it’s possible that what the editors meant is correct but they aren’t quite stating clearly. I have to take the definition as it appears, though, and not as it might possibly have been meant. Some of the definition is correct; what’s incorrect is to suggest that agnosticism is a form of atheism and incompatible with theism.
Tracie: I see part of the problem – in my criticism I write that “the above definition incorrectly regards agnosticism as distinct from theism and most forms of atheism” when I should have written “incompatible with.” I’ll change that and hopefully it will be more clear. Thanks for pointing this out!
Thanks Austin, I see your point. You are right that an atheist can take the position that they believe there is no god and still acknowledge they don’t (or can’t) know if there is a god or not. In fact, when I go back and reread, I see that I was simply taking the definitions to be moving from strong to weak atheism; but you are right that his final statement regarding weak atheism is made in such a way as to contrast it with the earlier definitions–so that it seems like a choice between them rather than providing a possibility of holding multiple views at once. And now, as well, with “(c)”–it almost does read to me that he’s calling agnosticism a form of atheism. I was putting the final “(c)” definition together with the final line and assuming he was clarifying the stance: that without knowlege this type of agnostic atheist views belief to be irrational.
But I agree after considering it from your perspective, it’s not as clear as I orginally read it.
Again, I really appreciate your input on atheist definitions. The more info out there, the better. I think it continues to be sorely needed.
Most dictionaries are written by descriptivists, a useless class of people who think that there are no rules to language and a word means whatever you think it means. They record how words are used, rather than what they mean.
As a culture we seem to have decided that correcting people or lifting the veil of ignorance is somehow rude or hurtful.
Do i seem bitter?
Anywho… if you tell someone $word means a, b and !c, they will find a dictionary saying it means a, b, c and g-q inclusive. If j is the entry they need to be right.
Whenever I see anything about “defining atheism,” I feel compelled to write and say “thank you” for posting it. In this case, even if it’s posted as an oldie-but-goodie. I have linked people often to the defintional resource articles at this site. They are extremely helpful.
Just to comment that there is a lot of confusion over such a simple concept. Anyone who does not believe a god exists is an atheist.
Overall, there are very few people who try to argue that this definition is not right. And the main support generally relies simply upon parsing a definition—simply refusing to accept the authorities who define the word in ways in which I do not like. But the reality is that common usage defines a term. If usage changes, so does the definition, over time.
But in the case of atheist, I have not met many people who would say that “a person who does not believe a god exists” is not an atheist. That definition, when I provide it, is broadly accepted by most atheists and theists I have dialogued with. However, I also find that many people don’t understand what it means to “not believe” a thing.
Example: I believe it is possible for my brakes to fail on the way home tonight. I do “not believe” my brakes will fail tonight. And I also do “not believe” my brakes cannot fail on the way home tonight.
Nobody would have any problem understanding or agreeing with the statements above. They are considered reasonable. Yet, apply that to “god,” and suddenly people equate “not believe” with believing the opposite and not holding out the possibility a god could exist.
To be fair, if someone said “I do not believe you’re telling the truth,” a lot of people would interpret that as me calling someone a liar. So, there are definitely areas where people will interpret it as believing the opposite. But if I were to say something like this, people would get it, and, again, generally agree:
“I tell you my husband is cheating. He tells you he is faithful. Do you believe me?”
If someone were to believe me without any support for my claim, that would be unjustified. And most people really wouldn’t condemn someone as an adulterer without some sort of reason why the accusation has been levied. So, most people would not honestly be able to say that without knowing me or knowing anything about why I’m claiming he’s unfaithful, that they “believe” me. However, I can also ask this:
“Do you believe him?”
Again, with nothing upon which to base an assessment, how could anyone believe either of us? They couldn’t—or at least most people understand why they shouldn’t. So, in this case, the person can reasonably say they don’t believe me, and they are not in any way calling me a liar. And generally people get this.
I have actually had a person write to me that “Just because someone does not believe a god exists, doesn’t mean they don’t believe a god exists.” And this was not an error or a typo.
They intended was something akin to this: “Just because someone _does not believe_ a god exists does not mean they do not _believe_ a god exists.”
What they failed to realize is that they actually _said_ this: “Just because someone _does not believe_ a god exists does not mean they _do not believe_ a god exists.”
In fact, a person who does “not believe” a god exists, really does “not believe” a god exists. The problem is that while generally people can be shown that “not believing” does not mean denying, and that a person who does “not believe” a god exists is an atheist, they still get extremely hung up on the stereotype of the atheist as a denier. Facts be damned, I was taught X, and X it shall remain—basically.
The sad fact is that this fundamental error of the atheist being required to be a staunch denier is propagated by disingenuous people who are most often theists building strawmen. But it is certainly digested and accepted by many theists _and_ atheists. And I never cease to be amazed that I can get a person to agree that a person who does “not believe” a god exists is an atheist, and that “not believing” doesn’t mean believing the opposite. And further that person will be able to admit they cannot say they “believe” a god exists (therefore, they do not believe), but that they are absolutely in no way an atheist.
I can’t make people wear a label they refuse to wear. But I can tell them that by definition, they are an atheist—whether they are willing to label themselves as such or not. But it’s a shame that such a demonstrably flawed distortion can stick so solidly and be so engrained in people’s minds—not just theists’ minds—that people can’t even recognize when they’re in the throes of self-contradiction, even while their noses are being rubbed in it.