Atheism, Definition And Overview

Atheism, Definition And Overview

What Is Atheism?
No one asks this question enough. The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources. Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods, but it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far, as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism.

The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the monotheistic influence. Without the monotheistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods." Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic, certain sects of Buddhism, for example, that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease.

A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. Atheists are as unique as our fingerprints.

What is Atheism? Ethics Without Gods. American History :-
Take the proposition, “God exists”. One could affirm the proposition, which is theism. Deny the proposition, which is atheism, or withhold judgment with regard to the proposition, which is agnosticism. Those who affirm the proposition have to give reasons why they think it is true. Those who deny it have to give reasons why they think it is false. Only those who withhold judgment have the right to sit on the fence on the issue.

Thus J. J. C. Smart states matter-of-factly, “‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” Nor will an attempt to defend this new definition on the basis of the etymology of the word “atheist” work. The word “atheist” is from the Greek word “Theos” which means “God”, and the “a” is the negation. The “a” is taken to mean “without”, and hence “atheism” simply means “without belief in God”. But this will not do. Even if we grant that the “a” means “without”, we will still not arrive at the conclusion that atheism means “without belief in God”. What is negated in the word “atheism” is not “belief” but “God”. Atheism still means “without God”, not “without belief”. There is no concept of “belief” in the etymology of the word – the word simply means the universe is without God, which is another way of saying that God does not exist.

Semantic quibbles aside, there are deeper problems with this position. The same atheists who decry the irrationality of believing in God still insist on shoehorning theistic ideas into their ontology. Most of them continue to defend the meaning and purpose of life, the validity of objective morality and the assurance that humanity is marching on towards progress and would move thus faster were it not for the shackles of religion.

Such cosmic optimism would be unrecognizable to the most prominent atheists of yesteryear, not to mention the many in our day who say as much. It is recognized as a remnant of a biblical tradition that still has some of its grip on the Western Psyche. Speaking about the belief that every human life needs to be protected, Richard Rorty wrote, “This Jewish and Christian element in our tradition is gratefully invoked by freeloading atheists like myself.”

To adopt a zoological metaphor, it might be helpful to think of atheism as a ‘family’, divided into two ‘genera’ (negative and positive), each made up of various ‘species’ (agnosticism, Promethean antitheism, etc.). This taxonomic approach to atheism permits exploration of a diverse range of stances and worldviews, united by their shared absence of theism. It encompasses, for example, the positive atheisms of the humanist Bertrand Russell, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, and the Marxist Mao Zedong, but also the negative atheisms of the agnostic Anthony Kenny, the logical positivist A. J. Ayer, and some, but not all of the secular ‘indifference’ of a large and increasing number of Westerners.

It would also include any genuinely religious atheisms, as are sometimes identified in strands of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism (though see Jessica Frazier’s, Andrew Skilton’s, and Anne Vallely’s chapters later in this Handbook). Needless to say, the great bulk of this coherent richness and diversity — and with it, the potential for illuminating comparisons and correlations is lost if atheism’s prefix is understood exclusively in the sense of a rejection and/or denial.

Of course, scholars are not obliged to take into account all of atheism’s ‘endless forms’, whenever they want to write about a particular ‘genus’ or ‘species’: positive atheism, for example, is and will remain a discrete and significant focus of enquiry in itself. Nonetheless, there is clear value in being at least aware of how one’s specific topic relates to the bigger picture. One positive result, for instance, may be to reduce the data-skewing tendency of some students of religion to bifurcate people into ‘religious believers’ and ‘convinced atheists’, as though there were no possibility of anything in between.

Debates about the definition of atheism are common, far too common, frankly, but there does not seem to be much that can be done about this. Sometimes there are poor reasons for disagreements, as when theists and even some atheists object to the implications of weak atheism and feel a need to reject it. Sometimes there are good reasons for disagreements, as when philosophers find weak atheism too uninteresting to write much about and prefer to focus on strong atheism — but don’t want to qualify their use of terminology all the time.

Definition of atheism in English :-
noun: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Example sentences Doubts and refutations were presented from the perspective of humanistic atheism and agnosticism. Christianity has nothing to fear from atheism or agnosticism.How atheism and agnosticism have spread in the later generations is there for everyone to see. Get more examples Synonymsnon-belief, non-theism, disbelief, unbelief, scepticism, doubt, agnosticism, irreligion, godlessness, ungodliness, profaneness, impiety, heresy, apostasy, paganism, heathenism, freethinking, nihilism.

The case for atheism as a kind of belief -- the belief in the nonexistence of God -- was championed by no less a figure than J.M. Robertson, the great historian of free thought. Robertson argued that any "ism," including atheism, implies that we are dealing with a positive belief or doctrine, not a simple privation. Contrary to Robertson's view, "-ism" can mean something other than a doctrine or belief; it can mean "a state or condition" as well.

Thus, the privative definition of atheism is still possible. Atheism as the absence of belief can denote an "ism" -- a state of mind in which theistic belief is absent.
In a thoughtful discussion of atheism contained in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards proposes a definition of atheism that falls midway between the negative definition (the absence of theistic belief) and the positive definition (the outright denial of theism). An atheist, according to Edwards, is a person "who rejects belief in God" for whatever reason. This definition allows Edwards to include as atheists those who maintain that the concept of God is incoherent or that the proposition "God exists" is meaningless and hence neither true nor false.

Certainly there is rome truth to this claim: positive atheism, at least, frequently expresses itself in opposition to some specific understanding of theism. In times and places where Christianity is prevalent, it would be strange to expend much energy critiquing the Neoplatonists’ One or Pharaoh Akhenaten’s sun-god Aten. And nor is it surprising that Western proponents of positive atheism should now direct their attentions to Islam, as well as to their traditional target of Christianity.

But the fact that prevailing theisms condition, the focus and expression of certain types of atheism, need not mean that either they or atheism in general have no wider referent. Even when specific attention is understandably given to one type of theism, this is normally accompanied and motivated by a general disavowal of all gods. (By analogy, an opposition party normally expresses itself against the policies of the government. But it would be something of a stretch to claim that, say, the essence of the Labour Party or socialism itself, is defined exclusively by ‘what the Tories are not’.)

"From the mere fact that a person is an atheist, one cannot infer that this person subscribes to any particular positive beliefs. One’s positive convictions are quite distinct from the subject of atheism. While one may begin with a basic philosophical position and infer atheism as a consequence of it, this process cannot be reversed. One cannot move from atheism to a basic philosophical belief, because atheism can be (and has been) incorporated within many different and incompatible philosophical systems." ( 1989: 21–2)

Flew fears that this negative definition "may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage," so he presents compelling reasons to support what he sees as an unusual definition. Perhaps this was for the best, because the resulting article, "The Presumption of Atheism," is one of the finest pieces on atheism ever written. But Flew's negative definition is anything but perverse.

On the contrary, it is a much-needed return to a grand tradition.
Not insignificantly, this way of defining atheism, has precedents in both the writings of influential atheist writers, and in key works in the philosophical and social-scientific study of atheism (e.g., Flew 1976; Smith 1989; Martin 1990; Hiorth 2003; Hwang et al. 2009; Eller 2010). Furthermore, given the benefits of finding an agreed upon definition among scholars of atheism as outlined in the previous section, its recent employment in another major, multiauthor reference work — The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (see Martin 2007) — is a key point in its favour.

Ernest Nagel disagrees with Smith's definition of atheism as an "absence of theism", saying only explicit atheism is true atheism. This means that Nagel believes that to be an Atheist, a person needs to know about God and then reject the idea of God. Theism, broadly defined, is just the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.

Most disagreement over this comes from Christians who insist that atheism must be the denial of gods, or at least of their god. Mere absence of belief in gods is, they claim, properly labeled agnosticism, even though agnosticism has it's own definition and is about a different concept entirely.

One of the few modem philosophers to embrace the negative definition of atheism is Antony Flew in his article, "The Presumption of Atheism." According to Flew, the prefix "a" in "atheism" should have the same negative meaning as in words like "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." "In this interpretation," Flew argues, "an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist."

Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Skeptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as skeptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.

In any case, such a definition of atheism goes against the intuitions held by almost everyone who has not been initiated into this way of thinking. In spite of the myriads of nuances one can give to one’s preferred version of denying God’s existence, the traditional view has been that there are ultimately only three attitudes one can take with regard to a particular proposition. Take the proposition, “God exists”. One could affirm the proposition, which is theism, Deny the proposition, which is atheism, or withhold judgment with regard to the proposition, which is agnosticism.

Those who affirm the proposition have to give reasons why they think it is true. Those who deny it have to give reasons why they think it is false. Only those who withhold judgment have the right to sit on the fence on the issue. Thus J. J. C. Smart states matter-of-factly, “‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

Of course, these definitions share certain features: all regard atheism as relating, in a negative way, to a thing or things called ‘god’, and all but one describe this relationship in terms of belief. But beyond this, it is obvious that these authors are not all talking about the same thing at all. The first and second include gods; the final three specify only one (which the final two give a capital G). The fourth definition, moreover, restricts this scope even further. Definitions two and three regard atheism as simply being the absence of a certain belief; the rest, contrariwise, see it as implying a definite belief. Moreover, the fifth definition also demands a level of intellectual — and perhaps also emotional — conviction, over and above simple believing.

I had no point, really, other than the obvious one that Dr. Bullivant was advancing a definition of "atheism" according to which his daughter is an atheist. I wonder if that was intentional. I might add that, in his bio at the end of the article, Dr. Bullivant is identified as "a former atheist." Given his definition, absolutely everyone who is not now an atheist is a former atheist. Jimmy Akin didn't explicitly answer his own question, but it looks like he was strongly leaning in the direction of saying that, no, babies aren't atheists. If so, that would put him in opposition to Dr. Bullivant -- unless Dr. Bullivant didn't actually mean to define "atheism" in such a way as to mean that babies are atheists.

What if we construe the prefix "a" negatively to mean "no"? This has been preferred by those who wish to define atheism as the outright denial of God's existence. But consider: even the negative sense of "a" doesn't, by itself, give us this definition. "A-theism," with the negative "a," translates into "no-belief in a god or gods." Here again, we have an essentially privative definition -- atheism as the absence of theistic belief.

Bibliography

"Atheism " Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"Atheism: An Introduction to Atheism" . n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"Defining Atheism | RZIM" . n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"Defining Atheism" . n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"How Should We Define 'Atheism'? | Strange Notions" . n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"Is Atheism a religion? " creation.com. n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"What is Atheism? Overview of How Atheism is Defined in ..." . n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"What is Atheism? | American Atheists" . n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

"atheism " definition of atheism in English from the Oxford dictionary. n.p., 1 Jan. 1970.Web. 28 Jan. 2016.