Defining Atheism
Atheism. It's kind of a buzz word these days. But what, exactly, is it? Depending on who you ask, or what dictionary source you look up, you'll get different answers. Some will tell you that an atheist is one who believes that there is no God. Others, however, will tell you that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. Who is right? Who is wrong? Where do you look for the answers? In a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or somewhere else?
Your typical self-righteous, self-labeled "agnostic" will tell you that an atheist is someone who believes that there exists no God. And, according to askoxford.com,they're right. Askoxford tells us that atheism is "the belief that God does not exist." So it's true, right? That's what atheism is, right? It's looking that way at the moment. But let's ask the same agnostic who gave us this definition what he would tell us agnosticism is. He would tell us that an agnostic is someone who neither believes there is a God, nor believes that there isn't one. Keep that in mind while we ask askoxford what an agnostic is: "a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God." It's not quite what the self-titled "agnostic" told us, is it? And yet this same person, this person that would have us adhere strictly to the dictionary definition of "atheism" to make his case, has now had the rug swept up from under him by the very same dictionary. He would now have us believe other than what the dictionary tells us an agnostic is. He would look for any and all other sources that conform to his definition of agnosticism to prove his point, all while having us adhere strictly to the same definition of atheism.
I've painted a rather ugly picture of this "agnostic," haven't I? Not all agnostics are like the above, however. In fact, as an agnostic myself, I am not like the picture I've just painted. I am not trying to stereotype agnostics (or atheists) here. However, I'm quite sure we've all run across the above example of an "agnostic." Someone who believes that atheism is the belief that there are not Gods, and that agnosticism is not believing "one way or the other" about God's existence. In my opinion, both of these definitions (of atheism and of agnosticism) are incorrect. Hello, I'm squarecircle. I'm an agnostic atheist.
So, I'm an agnostic and an atheist. But what does that mean? I have to apologize, because I'm not going to address that just yet. But I promise, I'll get back to it. Now, let's look at the dictionary again. I know you aren't familiar with those terms yet, so let's look at a different one. Most of us are familiar with the term, "religion." We know what it means. We know what a religion is. Well, what is it? It's not so easy to actually say it, is it? Askoxford tells us a religion is:
That's a bit silly. That's not what we mean when we say, "I just saw a bird," or, "There's a french fry in your soup." I'm curious. What is "is" according to Encarta?
It can't really tell us, because as simple as "is" seems to be, it is a rather complicated word. Well, I suppose we'll look up "be."
Well that was interesting. You can write an essay on this stuff. Have you had enough, or shall I look up the word "not?"
Is this what we think of when we want a "definition?" Is this a "definition" of "not?" Does this 100% accurately describe the word "not" to us? If we did not know the word "not," would this series of definitions and explanations reveal it to us? Or would we have to become intimate with the word to at least some extent?
Since we've switched from AskOxford to Encarta, I'm curious what it has to say about the terms "atheism" and "agnostic." Let's look them up.
atheism
atheist
agnosticism
agnostic
I'm sorry, my curiousity just got the better of me. That's all. But you can already see, with just two dictionaries, we have a discrepancy with the word "atheism." AskOxford tells us that atheism is the belief that there is no God, while Encarta tells us that it is simply not the belief in gods.
The point is that words don't have definitions in the way we tend to think they do. They aren't set in stone, and they aren't easy to pinpoint. Most words we can agree on, because we speak them commonly, casually, and in the same language. And in certain social circles, more "obscure" words and jargon are used within those circles and carry the intended meaning, and outside of these circles people may confuse or misdefine words. Resorting to a dictionary is fine for personal curiousity, but it is not an absolute reference to throw at someone else to "prove" them "wrong." It is a reference. That's it. When you get into a "definition war", a dictionary might be a good place to start, but what you'll really need to do is consult encyclopedias and other sources, and look at the usage of a word within its intended "social circle" or group. If nothing else, you could look at the origin and/or the etymology of a word. The truth is, however, that you really can't get to "know" a word until you become intimate with it. That means more than just "using" the word as much as you can. It means using it properly, and in the correct context, as well as amongst the correct audience. It means discussing it with others who commonly use the word.
To self-labeled atheists, the term "atheism" means, almost unanimously, "the lack of belief in gods." It means nothing more than "not theism." It is easy to pick out from the root words. "Theism" is the belief in god(s), where the prefix "a-" means "not," "non-," or "without." "Atheism," therefore, would simply not be theism, or rather, it is "not the belief in god(s)." While this is not exactly the etymology of the word "atheism," it is typically how the word is viewed today. As far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God" (Good Sense). Most atheists view themselves simply as non-theists. The terms, to self-labeled atheists, are synonymous with each other. In short, "atheism" means "non-theism" the same way "areligious" means "non-religious" or "irreligious." An areligious person isn't "anti-religious" or anything like that. She simply isn't religious. In the same line of thought, an atheist simply isn't a theist.
In any case, if you're going to throw dictionary definitions at someone, the least you could do is use multiple definitions from multiple dictionaries, and cite all of your sources.
Technorati Tags: religion, philosophy, atheism, god
Your typical self-righteous, self-labeled "agnostic" will tell you that an atheist is someone who believes that there exists no God. And, according to askoxford.com,they're right. Askoxford tells us that atheism is "the belief that God does not exist." So it's true, right? That's what atheism is, right? It's looking that way at the moment. But let's ask the same agnostic who gave us this definition what he would tell us agnosticism is. He would tell us that an agnostic is someone who neither believes there is a God, nor believes that there isn't one. Keep that in mind while we ask askoxford what an agnostic is: "a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God." It's not quite what the self-titled "agnostic" told us, is it? And yet this same person, this person that would have us adhere strictly to the dictionary definition of "atheism" to make his case, has now had the rug swept up from under him by the very same dictionary. He would now have us believe other than what the dictionary tells us an agnostic is. He would look for any and all other sources that conform to his definition of agnosticism to prove his point, all while having us adhere strictly to the same definition of atheism.
I've painted a rather ugly picture of this "agnostic," haven't I? Not all agnostics are like the above, however. In fact, as an agnostic myself, I am not like the picture I've just painted. I am not trying to stereotype agnostics (or atheists) here. However, I'm quite sure we've all run across the above example of an "agnostic." Someone who believes that atheism is the belief that there are not Gods, and that agnosticism is not believing "one way or the other" about God's existence. In my opinion, both of these definitions (of atheism and of agnosticism) are incorrect. Hello, I'm squarecircle. I'm an agnostic atheist.
So, I'm an agnostic and an atheist. But what does that mean? I have to apologize, because I'm not going to address that just yet. But I promise, I'll get back to it. Now, let's look at the dictionary again. I know you aren't familiar with those terms yet, so let's look at a different one. Most of us are familiar with the term, "religion." We know what it means. We know what a religion is. Well, what is it? It's not so easy to actually say it, is it? Askoxford tells us a religion is:
• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion. — ORIGIN originally in the sense life under monastic vows: from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.
Does that seem correct to you? Maybe it does. Well, when we're talking about religion, we generally aren't talking about "a pursuit or interest followed with devotion." We know that this is a more casual definition, which actually plays on the actual definition of "religion." But which definition is that? The second definition, "a particular system of faith and worship," is a little vague. Also, it is the second definition. Let's look at the primary one. "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Ah, that's it! That describes religions just right! Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, pagan and neo-pagan faiths all fall under this definition. They're religions. So we must have hit the so-called "jackpot," right?
We know what a religion is. So, what about religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, and other faiths? They don't fall under this definition of "religion." They don't explicitly include the worship of gods. According to the dictionary-- they aren't religions. Oops. We goofed.
Well, we all know what dragons are. The dictionary can't keep messing up on us like this. Let's see what it has to say about dragons. Askoxford says: "a mythical monster like a giant reptile, typically able to breathe out fire." Well, a dragon is a mythical monster, like a giant reptile, and we certainly do imagine them breathing out fire. But does this mean that any giant reptile creature is a "dragon?" The dictionary doesn't even tell us it has to breathe out fire, and certainly, not all dragons of great mythologies did. So that leaves us with a giant reptile-like creature. All giant reptile-like creatures are dragons, then? No, that doesn't seem right. But the dictionary tells us exactly that!
The dictionary is just a reference piece. A place to go when you don't know what a word means at all. It's better than a shot in the dark when you've just heard a new word. But that's all it is-- a reference book. You have to be intimate with a word to know its true meaning. Or, at least, look it up in an encyclopedia. The dictionary is not some ultimate source for definitions. It cannot tell us what words like "a," "is," or "not" mean. We have to know what they mean. We are intimate with those words and we know exactly what they mean. But their dictionary definitions, if you can even find them, wouldn't tell us much. In fact, askoxford.com has no entries for any of those words. But I'm curious what another dictionary would say about it, so let's look up "a" at MSN Encarta:
noun
Definition:
1. 1st letter of English alphabet: the first letter of the English alphabet, representing a vowel sound
2. letter "a" written: a written representation of the letter "a"
That's a bit silly. That's not what we mean when we say, "I just saw a bird," or, "There's a french fry in your soup." I'm curious. What is "is" according to Encarta?
Definition:
3rd person singular present of be
It can't really tell us, because as simple as "is" seems to be, it is a rather complicated word. Well, I suppose we'll look up "be."
be (1st person singular past indicative was, 2nd person singular past indicative were, 3rd person singular past indicative was, 1st person plural past indicative were, 2nd person plural past indicative were, 3rd person plural past indicative were, past subjunctive were, past participle been, present subjunctive be, present participle be·ing, 1st person present singular am, 2nd person present singular are, 3rd person present singular is, 1st person present plural are, 2nd person present plural are, 3rd person present plural are) CORE MEANING: a verb used most commonly to link the subject of a clause to a complement in order to give more information about the subject, e.g. its identity, nature, attributes, position, or value This is my coworker.
Definition: 1. intransitive verb giving description: used after "it" as the subject of the clause, to give a description or judgment of something 2. intransitive verb exist or be true: used after "there" to indicate that something exists or is true 3. intransitive verb exist: to exist, have presence, or live 4. intransitive verb happen: to happen or take place 5. intransitive verb stay: to stay or visit 6. intransitive verb have particular quality: to have a particular quality or attribute 7. intransitive verb remain: used to indicate that a particular situation remains 8. aux v expressing continuation: used as an auxiliary verb with the present participles of other verbs to express continuation 9. aux v forming passive: used as an auxiliary verb with the past participles of transitive verbs to form the passive voice 10. aux v expressing future: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that something is planned, expected, intended, or supposed to happen in the future ( used with an infinitive ) 11. aux v expressing unplanned action in past: used as an auxiliary verb when reporting past events to indicate that something happened later than the time reported and was unplanned or uncertain at the time ( used with an infinitive ) 12. aux v forming perfect tense: used as an auxiliary verb with the past participles of some intransitive verbs to form a perfect tense ( archaic ) 13. intransitive verb introducing sentence: used to introduce a full, often quoted sentence ( informal ) [ Old English bēon, via Germanic, "exist, dwell" < Indo-European, "exist, grow"] been there, done that (bought the T-shirt) used to indicate a blasé attitude to a situation (slang) be off to leave somewhere
Well that was interesting. You can write an essay on this stuff. Have you had enough, or shall I look up the word "not?"
not
adverbDefinition: 1. forming negatives: a negative adverb used to form structures indicating that something is to no degree or in no way the case or conveying the general notion "no." It is often used to express refusal, denial, or the negation of a statement just made. ( often contracted in spoken and informal written English to "n't" ) 2. sentence substitute: used as a sentence substitute when indicating denial, refusal or negation, in order to avoid repetition 3. indicating opposite: tagged onto the end of a statement to indicate that the truth is the opposite of what has been stated ( humorous ) [14th century. Contraction of nought] not at all used as a polite way of acknowledging somebody's thanks not that used to introduce a clause that explicitly denies something that the listener might infer from a previous or subsequent statement
Is this what we think of when we want a "definition?" Is this a "definition" of "not?" Does this 100% accurately describe the word "not" to us? If we did not know the word "not," would this series of definitions and explanations reveal it to us? Or would we have to become intimate with the word to at least some extent?
Since we've switched from AskOxford to Encarta, I'm curious what it has to say about the terms "atheism" and "agnostic." Let's look them up.
atheism
a·the·ism
nounDefinition: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities
atheist
a·the·ist (plural a·the·ists)
nounDefinition: unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
agnosticism
ag·nos·ti·cism
nounDefinition: view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
agnostic
ag·nos·tic (plural ag·nos·tics)
nounDefinition: 1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists 2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood
I'm sorry, my curiousity just got the better of me. That's all. But you can already see, with just two dictionaries, we have a discrepancy with the word "atheism." AskOxford tells us that atheism is the belief that there is no God, while Encarta tells us that it is simply not the belief in gods.
The point is that words don't have definitions in the way we tend to think they do. They aren't set in stone, and they aren't easy to pinpoint. Most words we can agree on, because we speak them commonly, casually, and in the same language. And in certain social circles, more "obscure" words and jargon are used within those circles and carry the intended meaning, and outside of these circles people may confuse or misdefine words. Resorting to a dictionary is fine for personal curiousity, but it is not an absolute reference to throw at someone else to "prove" them "wrong." It is a reference. That's it. When you get into a "definition war", a dictionary might be a good place to start, but what you'll really need to do is consult encyclopedias and other sources, and look at the usage of a word within its intended "social circle" or group. If nothing else, you could look at the origin and/or the etymology of a word. The truth is, however, that you really can't get to "know" a word until you become intimate with it. That means more than just "using" the word as much as you can. It means using it properly, and in the correct context, as well as amongst the correct audience. It means discussing it with others who commonly use the word.
To self-labeled atheists, the term "atheism" means, almost unanimously, "the lack of belief in gods." It means nothing more than "not theism." It is easy to pick out from the root words. "Theism" is the belief in god(s), where the prefix "a-" means "not," "non-," or "without." "Atheism," therefore, would simply not be theism, or rather, it is "not the belief in god(s)." While this is not exactly the etymology of the word "atheism," it is typically how the word is viewed today. As far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God" (Good Sense). Most atheists view themselves simply as non-theists. The terms, to self-labeled atheists, are synonymous with each other. In short, "atheism" means "non-theism" the same way "areligious" means "non-religious" or "irreligious." An areligious person isn't "anti-religious" or anything like that. She simply isn't religious. In the same line of thought, an atheist simply isn't a theist.
In any case, if you're going to throw dictionary definitions at someone, the least you could do is use multiple definitions from multiple dictionaries, and cite all of your sources.
Technorati Tags: religion, philosophy, atheism, god
Powered by ScribeFire.
Labels: agnostic, agnosticism, atheism, atheist, god, philosophy, religion
posted by squarecircle at
4:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home