Atheism Basics: Definition of Atheism in Reference Books
Friday July 27, 2007
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
Comments
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.