Thread on what it really means to be an “atheist”:
1. In recent years there has been a lot of debate regarding the proper definition of “atheist,” Traditionally, atheism has been defined as the claim that God does not exist.
2. In the mid-20th century, however, atheist philosopher Antony Flew attempted to redefine atheism. Noting that the Greek prefix “a” is a term of negation, Flew said the proper definition of a-theism is simply “not a theist.”
3. Another popular way of cashing this out has been to define atheism as “one who lacks belief in God.”
4. Whatʼs the difference between these definitions? The traditional definition is an ontological claim (God is not included among the entities that exist) while the new definition is a psychological description (“I have no belief regarding the existence or non-existence of God”).
5. We might label these two ways of defining atheism as “ontological atheism” and “psychological atheism.”
Why does it matter how we define atheism?
Why does it matter how we define atheism?
6. It matters because of the burden of proof. A principle of rational discourse is that he who makes a claim bears the burden to defend it.
7. If someone claims that God does not exist (ontological atheism), he bears a burden to demonstrate how he knows this to be true.
8. On the other hand, one who lacks any beliefs with respect to Godʼs existence (psychological atheism) bears no burden of proof because he is not making a claim to knowledge.
9. He is merely describing the content of his beliefs – that his stock of beliefs does not include a belief regarding the existence or non-existence of God.
10. Flew understood this. He purposely redefined atheism to make it a psychological description so as to absolve atheists from their burden to defend the claim that God does not exist.
11. The milion dollar question, then, is which definition of atheism is the right definition? Is atheism “belief in no God” (ontological atheism) or “no belief in God?” (psychological atheism)
12. Historically, atheism has been defined as the belief that no god(s) exists. For example, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as “the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”
13. And there is good reason for this definition. There are only three possible positions one can take regarding any given truth claim: affirm it, deny it, or reserve judgment.
14. In this context, the truth- claim in question is “God exists.” Theism is the affirmation that the proposition “God exists” is true, while atheism is the denial that the proposition “God exists” is true.
15. If one does not know if the proposition is true or false, then they are an agnostic. Itʼs that simple!
16. While many atheists want to define their view as “one who lacks belief in God,” when you probe the content of their beliefs it becomes readily apparent that they do not lack a belief concerning the existence of God at all.
17. They are not neutral with respect to the proposition “God exists.” They believe God does not, or probably does not exist, and thus regardless of how they wish to define atheism, they bear a burden to explain why Godʼs existence is more improbable than not.
End of thread🙂
Loading suggestions...