Theism v. Non-Theism

Often people believe Atheism is a reaction to the troubles of Christianity; a form of 'rebellion.' But, to me, atheism is not simply a rebellion against one certain path; atheism is out to disprove all metaphysical beliefs.

Please consider the following article written by Sam Harris: The Problem with Atheism

Excerpt:

We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is
scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a
world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to
know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting
for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival
as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see,
is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that
intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more
durable, and more easily spread, than "atheism."

Is it a good idea to replace the term 'Atheist' with the term 'Intellectual Honesty'?

Are all faiths dishonest? Foolish? Illogical?

Please read the article and share your thoughts on what Harris wrote.

I think that the article itself is a good example of the tunnel vision that goes on. Taking on Christianity or even taking on all the Abrahamatic faiths is not the same as taking on all religion.

Sakhaiva wrote:Often people believe Atheism is a reaction to the troubles of Christianity; a form of 'rebellion.' But, to me, atheism is not simply a rebellion against one certain path; atheism is out to disprove all metaphysical beliefs.

Is it a good idea to replace the term 'Atheist' with the term 'Intellectual Honesty'?

No. And Harris is not suggesting that it would be. He argues for a world in which such a distinction is as unnecessary and superfluous as referring to a group of people as non-racists.

Non-religion is the default position as he sees it and does not require a label.

Are all faiths dishonest? Foolish? Illogical?

Oh, I think that Harris would agree that most of them are all of these.

How can a religion be anything but illogical when its bottom line is that because there isn't proof for its core beliefs, one must "have faith" that they are true?

Sakhaiva wrote:Please read the article and share your thoughts on what Harris wrote.

I found Harris's comments on "atheists" being at a "rhetorical disadvantage" because they neglect the experiences and insights of those who have gone into solitude and pratice meditation and contemplation "for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else -- not talking, not reading, not writing" as not only a little naive of actual practice but also uncomfortably and defensively creating a needless level of inferiority for "atheists."

First of all, I feel this way because it seems to me that many, if not most, ascetics, monastics, and solitaries use written and/or oral texts (such as koans or lectio divina -- holy reading), as well as writing and chanting (consider Tibetan Buddhist deep throat chanting, Benedictine Gregorian Chant, Japanese Zen haiku, and the Hindu bhakti poetry, for instance) as integral aspects of their practice. Second of all, I feel this way because I do wonder how many theists themselves have actually experienced or even been exposed to this kind of "human experience," particularly those whose traditions generally have no living monastic and/or ascetic traditions.

Well, if atheism required intellectual honesty or if the two were somehow necessarily linked, he might have a point.

I think part of Harris' point is this:

A) When you apply the label "atheist," people see the label and all the baggage they attach to that label, instead of seeing the argument being made on the merits of logic, evidence, etc.

B) I think one reason intelligent people of faith are reluctant to jump in and correct their less logical theist cousins on some points of science, politics, etc., is that they have seen how the fundamentalist mindsets reacts to atheism, and the intelligent people of faith do not want to be lumped into that category, too. It could be that they, too, attach a lot of baggage to the "atheist" label and would prefer to avoid aligning themselves with that.

If discussion could get away from labels and stick to logic and evidence, it might provide an "in" for intelligent theists to join the conversations. Imagine if people could talk about the evidence for, say, evolution or a literal Bible, without having to get into the "evil atheist" thing or the "not a true Christian" thing. Just refuse to give in on the label, and stick to the case.

I dunno. Harris may be on to something there.

Weeelll, actually, I think Harris's meaning of "intellectual honesty" relative to theists is that they know what they believe is neither true nor actual, and thus, they're being dishonest in promoting a falsehood.

DotNotInOz wrote:Weeelll, actually, I think Harris's meaning of "intellectual honesty" relative to theists is that they know what they believe is neither true nor actual, and thus, they're being dishonest in promoting a falsehood.

This sounds similar to the Existential concept that Sartre called "bad faith," and concerning which he wrote, "Those who hide their complete freedom from themselves out of a spirit of seriousness or by means of deterministic excuses, I shall call cowards" (Sartre, "Existentialism Is a Humanism").

to me, atheism is not simply a rebellion against one certain path; atheism is out to disprove all metaphysical beliefs.

For one thing, Atheism is a belief. It's a belief that there is no god. If you don't make a claim one way or the other, then you're not an Atheist.

If you're an Atheist, then you have a belief.

For another thing, pretty much all Atheists are Materialists or Physicalists. Materialists say that matter is all of reality, all that exists. Physicalists say that the physical world is all of reality, all that exists.

Materialism and Physicalism are metaphlysical beliefs. Most or all Atheists believe in one of those two metaphysical beliefs.

I'll add, too, that Physicalism and Materialism, as metaphysical belifs, don't hold up under scrutiny. In discussions about them, it always turns out that their proponents, Materialists and Physicalists, are unable to justify their metaphysical beliefs.

Because of the successes of science, we've all been taught that science, and the physical world that it studies, has all the answers and explanations. We're taught a cargo-cult worship of science.

Science is valid and useful within its legitimate range of applicability. But many of us tend to make it into a religion, as a result of how we've been taught.

Michael5810 wrote:
For one thing, Atheism is a belief. It's a belief that there is no god. If you don't make a claim one way or the other, then you're not an Atheist.

Nope. You're mistaking atheism with positive atheism. Atheism is simply the absence of theology.

all

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Michael5810 wrote:
For one thing, Atheism is a belief. It's a belief that there is no god. If you don't make a claim one way or the other, then you're not an Atheist.

Nope. You're mistaking atheism with positive atheism. Atheism is simply the absence of theology.

all

Then you and I must be consulting different dictionaries. The dictionaries that I've checked say that Atheism is the belief that there isn't a God.

If you believe that there is no God, then you're an Atheist.
If you believe that there is a God, then you're a Theist.

The "Agnostic" definition that I've seen says that an Agnostic is someone who believes that the matter of whether or not there is a God is unknowable.

Of course, then, what would you call the person who says that he doesn't know the answer to that question, but doesn't claim that the answer is unknowable? I'd expand the definition of Agnositic a little, to include him too.

Anyway, as I said, most Atheists believe in Physicalism or Materialism in a thoroughly faith-based way, as do the prosyletizers who come to my door.

I disagree about the "God" - notice the capitalization? There are many people who do not believe in the Christian god and yet they are not atheists. Additionally, theists do not necessarily believe in the Christian god.

Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (The Free Dictionary)

Theist - Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Agnostic - a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

The above all from The Free Dictionary

Whether atheists believe in Physicalism or Materialism has nothing to do with it.

You cannot prove that "most" atheists believe in Physicalism or Materialism, it is just that atheists don't believe in gods. What you are saying is that you have an opinion about what "most" atheists believe which could very well be wrong since it is not based in fact.

Gah! My post disappeared.

Physicalism

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

I wonder if there are atheist who believe in ghosts? I think very likely that there are but I'd be interesting hearing from others.

But back the the question of whether disbelief is a belief. To turn it around a little, does a Christian's disbelief in the existence of other people's gods mean that they believe that those other gods exist and they are validating them with their belief? That is what a Christian is trying to do when they tell atheists that they have a belief that the Christian god doesn't exist. It is kind of a twisty thing.

Disbelief is that you just find something impossible to believe. I disbelieve that there are monsters under my bed. It isn't just that I believe there are no monsters under the bed. I can't believe that under the bed monsters exist at all.

Excellent points Gilly.

The most common atheist perspective I have come across regarding polytheism (for example) is that so few people ascribe to it that it isn't something that they have to worry about. In essence polytheism gave way to monotheism, which itself is in the process of giving way to atheism. Well that and most of the polytheists atheists come across are not trying to convert the world, and so some are willing to live and let live.

As a friend of mine once said, "I'd love to believe that there's a being smarter than most people are, but so far, I haven't seen any reasonable evidence of such. Provide some, and I'd be delighted to change my mind."

Michael5810 wrote:
Then you and I must be consulting different dictionaries. The dictionaries that I've checked say that Atheism is the belief that there isn't a God.

I can't help it if your dictionary is wrong.

Michael5810 wrote:
If you believe that there is no God, then you're an Atheist.
If you believe that there is a God, then you're a Theist.

See, wrong.

An atheist is someone who does not subscribe to a theology. A- without. Theist- one who has a theology. It's a simple concept.

Michael5810 wrote:
The "Agnostic" definition that I've seen says that an Agnostic is someone who believes that the matter of whether or not there is a God is unknowable.

An agnostic is a person who does not claim to have knowledge on that matter. A- without. Gnosis- knowledge. Again, simple.

Michael5810 wrote:
Of course, then, what would you call the person who says that he doesn't know the answer to that question, but doesn't claim that the answer is unknowable?

Polite.

Michael5810 wrote:
I'd expand the definition of Agnositic a little, to include him too.

Don't have to. The definition is a personal one, If he claims to lack the knowledge, that fills the requirement.

Michael5810 wrote:
Anyway, as I said, most Atheists believe in Physicalism or Materialism in a thoroughly faith-based way, as do the prosyletizers who come to my door.

Maybe true, maybe false. Beside the point anyway.

all

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:Excellent points Gilly.

The most common atheist perspective I have come across regarding polytheism (for example) is that so few people ascribe to it that it isn't something that they have to worry about. In essence polytheism gave way to monotheism, which itself is in the process of giving way to atheism. Well that and most of the polytheists atheists come across are not trying to convert the world, and so some are willing to live and let live.

As a polytheist, the usual response I get from atheists is that they don't see any reason to believe that my flavor of polytheism is correct. I usually just tell them that they shouldn't believe it then. It pretty much ends things right there, at least from a theistic aspect.

all

DotNotInOz wrote:As a friend of mine once said, "I'd love to believe that there's a being smarter than most people are, but so far, I haven't seen any reasonable evidence of such. Provide some, and I'd be delighted to change my mind."

I'd probably reply that evidence is personal, and smarter is relative. If a person doesn't have any, there is no reason for them to change.

all

A dictionary meaning is simply a summary of what most people surveyed by the dictionary's compilers understood the word to mean.

Depending upon how the dictionary is organized, the first listed meaning is likely to be the one most commonly mentioned for a given word.

Where something like atheism is concerned, that doesn't necessarily mean that the most commonly understood meaning for the term reflects how atheists themselves understand it.

In short, a general-use dictionary isn't the authority that many people believe it to be.

Much would also depend upon the specific biases of the dictionary's compilers as to how reliable a listed meaning for a term like atheism will be.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:Excellent points Gilly.

The most common atheist perspective I have come across regarding polytheism (for example) is that so few people ascribe to it that it isn't something that they have to worry about. In essence polytheism gave way to monotheism, which itself is in the process of giving way to atheism. Well that and most of the polytheists atheists come across are not trying to convert the world, and so some are willing to live and let live.

As a polytheist, the usual response I get from atheists is that they don't see any reason to believe that my flavor of polytheism is correct. I usually just tell them that they shouldn't believe it then. It pretty much ends things right there, at least from a theistic aspect.

all

Makes sense.

DotNotInOz wrote:A dictionary meaning is simply a summary of what most people surveyed by the dictionary's compilers understood the word to mean.

Depending upon how the dictionary is organized, the first listed meaning is likely to be the one most commonly mentioned for a given word.

Where something like atheism is concerned, that doesn't necessarily mean that the most commonly understood meaning for the term reflects how atheists themselves understand it.
In short, a general-use dictionary isn't the authority that many people believe it to be.

Much would also depend upon the specific biases of the dictionary's compilers as to how reliable a listed meaning for a term like atheism will be.

Exactly! A general-use dictionary is the authority when people of different religious/educational backgrounds are discussing a subject however. The only way people can talk with any meaning is to decide what various terms mean and usually that is to agree to use a general-use dictionary, when people are of different religions, rather than use one that is specific to a religion or expresses the definitions unique to one segment of a religion.

In my tradition, we have a lesson on this, how within a religion or sect words have a certain meaning that they do not have to people outside the sect or religion. Within a religion or a sect, a word may be a symbol of a whole string of concepts attached to it that it does not to other people.

That is why here the majority of us have to agree on the meaning of a word and not use our words with non-traditional meanings. I say majority because it is difficult enough to get a group to agree on definitions in the best of times. There is sometimes someone who refuses to use the general-use dictionary definitions and there is no way to force that.

When discussing what an atheist does or does not believe, I think a much better resource would be publications by atheist or humanist organizations rather than any dictionary, general-use or otherwise.

A specialized dictionary whose compilers surveyed experts in the fields covered by the dictionary would be better than a general-use dictionary but still ordinarily not as good as consulting detailed writings by recognized experts. No matter how specialized its subject matter, a dictionary's meanings are still summaries of what the people surveyed understand the word to mean.

A general-use dictionary as an authority on what constitutes atheism is really quite useless unless you want to know what the ordinary citizen thinks the term means. I believe most of us here are rather more advanced than that when it comes to discussing issues of non-religion and religion.

I don't think so, Dot, mainly because each sect in my religion, and I'm assuming among atheists, too, even though they don't have sect per se, there is disagreement about what terms exactly mean. I am just a tad bit annoyed by people outside my religion and tradition telling me what I believe based upon something they read from a "Wiccan" organization and it is not what I believe or what my tradition believes. I'd rather have definitions from a general-usage dictionary because they are wide enough to include most if not all. They are not precise for my tradition but I can explain why and where based not upon all Wiccans (or atheists) but upon my tradition.

But by all means put up different definitions from atheist organizations because it is always fun to discuss them and see how they differ from other definitions and why.

I disagree about the "God" - notice the capitalization?

Many people regard the matter of that word's capitalization as saying something about advocacy of existence. But, according to Simon & Schuster's New World Dictionary, as the name of the deity of monotheistic religions, God is capitalized.

There's certainly much room for defining such words as Atheist or Agnostic. I was just quoting Simon & Schuster's definition of "Atheist", which is probably consistent with other dictionaries.

There are many people who do not believe in the Christian god and yet they are not atheists.

Quite so. Jewish people aren't Atheists. In general I don't think that anyone would call a monotheist an Atheist.

Or is the New Testament Christian God the same as the Old Testament God? Maybe as regards the name that people refer by. But not in disposition or actions.

Anyway, of course, as I said, there's much room for different definitions of Atheist and Agnostic. I was just quoting Simon & Schuster.

I don't find any reasons to disagree with someone who merely doesn't believe in God. But, when I hear them, I like to merely point out that the lack of physcial evidence for God isn't surprising, since no one is claiming that God is physical, or detectable by physical instruments.

And, when Atheists point out that the existence of God isn't proved, it should be pointed out that no metaphysics or ontology is provable. Discussion of what is beyond this life and this world is speculative. Words can suggest only. Therefore, the lack of proof certainly doesn't count as even suggestive evidence of nonexistence.

Those are the two things I'd point out to Atheists.

Whether atheists believe in Physicalism or Materialism has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough. It has nothing to do with the definition of Atheism. But it relates to the validity of many Atheists' belief that they are not believers. I did hear that claim in this forum.

You cannot prove that "most" atheists believe in Physicalism or Materialism

Fair enough--I haven't proven it. In principle maybe I could establish it, to some particular confidence-level, with a survey. All I can say is that the Atheists that I've spoken with, on other forums, espouse Physicalism. That could be a coincidence.

But wouldn't you agree that most Atheists don't believe in any nonphysical reality? Certainly most of the Atheists that I've encountered on forums express a lot of contempt for any suggestion of a nonphysical reality, treating it as a heresy, which, for them, it probably is.

But no, I admit that I can't prove that about all or even most Atheists in the general larger population of Atheists.

, it is just that atheists don't believe in gods. What you are saying is that you have an opinion about what "most" atheists believe which could very well be wrong since it is not based in fact.

Ok, maybe I don't know what most of the overall population of Atheists are like. But if you disparage suggestions of nonphysical reality, then you're espousing the belief that the physical is all of reality--Physicalism.


Re: the posted definition of Physicalism: Supervene is defined by Simon & Schuster as to come or arrive as something extraneous or unexpected.
I'm not sure what that would mean in the Physicalism definition.

The posted definition is saying that everything is physical or arrives as something extraneous or unexpected with respect to the physical in some sense, or is necessitated by the physical.

Ok, that's broader than the definition that I've seen, which merely refers to a belief that physical things are all of reality.