Reverberations are still being felt from PZ’s blog post last week. He complained about “dictionary atheists” who were overly specific about the definition of atheism. Singled out for his annoyance was something I’ve said many times:
Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief.
Or when I’m feeling like breaking out the first order predicate calculus:
Atheism is not a “belief” in “no gods”. It’s “no belief” in “gods”. As such, atheism doesn’t make any claims. It’s a reaction to the claims of theists.
And so on.
As if in response, PZ says:
Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You’ve got a discussion going, talking about why you’re an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that “Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.” As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. Dumbasses.
But but but!
I worried that PZ was getting away from good reasoning. The dictionary definition of atheism is very useful, if only for rhetorical purposes. Not advancing a claim means you don’t have to provide evidence, which is very handy for me. And in the case of gods, the burden of evidence really does belong to their claimants. Which puts the atheist on safe ground.
True, sometimes I do find myself speaking of “atheism qua movement” as being more than just lack of belief. For me, becoming an atheist and rejecting gods and supernaturalism — provisionally, of course — has been the gateway to a new way of thinking that has made my life better.
But how did a non-position do that? Since atheism is not of itself a philosophy or set of principles or anything like that, what kind of positive value does it impart? How can it help humanity or advance human knowledge, or really, do anything if it doesn’t of itself put forth any claims or do any of the things a philosophy usually does?
Let me use my subjective experience to untangle this.
My deconversion only became possible because I decided that I cared what was true more than I cared for my religion of origin. In the years leading to my deconversion, I learned more about how to think critically, and how to be skeptical about claims. Though my religion taught that I was to discount reason — sorry, “man’s reason” — I decided that it was better than the selective and convenient reasoning that people at church engaged in. And I learned more about the scientific method. Once those were in place, it was just a matter of time before I saw the claims of religion for what they were.
What I’m saying is that atheism didn’t get me to atheism — these other things did. Atheism was the result.
Which puts me where PZ already is: Atheism is not a philosophy — it’s a conclusion.
In that Montreal talk, I explained that there is more to my atheism than simple denial of one claim; it’s actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world. My atheism is not solely a negative claim about gods, but is based on a whole set of positive values that I will emphasize when talking about atheism. That denial of god thing? It’s a consequence, not a cause.
What got me to that consequence — and what I’ve worked into my life since — are a number of positive -isms.
- Secularism — I think people shouldn’t be allowed to use their god-belief as a way of controlling the behaviour of others, particularly children and those who don’t believe in the religion. A secular society means that everyone’s religion gets treated the same. That’s fair.
- Rationalism — Having a commitment to using reason as a guide.
- Skepticism — Being critical of claims. Asking for evidence. Asking “How do you know?”
- Humanism — I’ve held off on calling myself a humanist so far, but if someone mistook me for one, I wouldn’t mind. I think it has much to recommend itself. The humanist slogan “Good Without God” is one that stirs this godless heart.
- And of course, the scientific method — using publicly available observation and evidence confirmed by multiple sources to separate fact from fantasy.
These positive values are bound up in my atheism, and that of others whose stories I’ve read. So is it right to say that atheism is separate from these values? Well, they’re not all the same thing. Not every skeptic is an atheist. And atheists are not necessarily rationalists. So while these -isms are not synonymous with atheism (unfortunately), they do tend to cluster around atheism, to the extent that they get associated with atheism, even though they are not atheism themselves.
I think people use “atheism” as a kind of shorthand for these other positive values. Our minds work like that. We make little logical leaps all the time without noticing. So if I speak of atheism as a positive value, I hope you’ll understand what I’m doing. I’m leaving behind a strict dictionary defition of atheism, and using it as a way of talking about all the positive things.
So I get what PZ is on about. Hang the dictionary definition of atheism! Enough of arguing with the careful tweezers! These tools are our spaceship, and atheism is the rocket fuel!
Well, it’s not really rocket fuel, but I hope you know what I mean.
6 February 2011 at 3:58 pm
I thought about blogging my own thoughts after reading it. Something like "Oh noes, PZ Myers hates me!" – but I couldn't be bothered.
I love Pharyngula a lot of the time and PZ can surely be humorously erudite when he wants to be but I'm not sure he gets to lay down rules defining atheism for everyone. In fact, I think it goes against the very notion that we aren't all of a single mindset.
What next, follow him to a ranch where we'll all live and keep watch for the FBI as we drink his special brand of cordial?
He's just a biologist, not a god 🙂
6 February 2011 at 5:03 pm
I basically agree with your position (and wrote something as much on PZ's wall of comments [which proceeded to get lost in a sea of more comments]), but that association is what bothers me as well.
Maybe I don't want to be associated with "rationalism" just because I'm an atheist.
Why might that be?
because maybe "rationalism" is now associated with terms I do not agree with. Continuing the dislike of dictionary definitions, we might say that "atheist rationalists are hyper-rationalists" where "hyper-rationalism" entails a set of narrow-sighted eliminations of entire spectra of experiences because they don't fit in the hyper-rationalist's purview of reality.
(I guess one thing I'd point out is: rationalism is about using reason as a source of knowledge or justification. But all reason is is the mental ability to generate conclusions and inferences from premises. People often want to say, "That's irrational!" or "That's illogical," when ultimately, all they are doing is disagreeing with the starting premises of the other person's argument.)
All of a sudden, I have to start defending against claims that I never made — and more importantly, I have to start challenging other "atheists" because they want to lump these claims in with atheism rather than with whatever else they have (rationalism, secularism, whatever.)
6 February 2011 at 11:08 pm
Fascinating.
I'd be careful about throwing around terms like "rationalism" too liberally, so oft abused by various parties ranging from communists to hard core laissez-faire Reaganists.
If you think atheism is not a belief "set" or "system", you are blowing wind up your own ass.
7 February 2011 at 2:16 am
I haven't read the PZ post.
I think, just like Christians will say to me "Yeah, I'm Christian but that doesn't define me" it is the same with Atheism.
I only started actually identifying as "Atheist" recently, because it was quicker than explaining my non-belief in any gods, belief in the scientific methos etc. etc. etc.
Identifying as Atheist helps me with other things too. I use it as kind of a yardstick when confronted with new information. It helps me to establish what kind of evidence I would consider to be necessary as proof and encourages me to seek that evidence.
Deep enough?
If you think you know anything about me because you've read the dictionary definition of atheist, then I know all about you because you've confessed to not believing in fairies.
7 February 2011 at 2:21 am
Anonymous, who are you to tell anyone else that you know about their beliefs?
I know if I make a new friend, who, say, identifies as a Jehovah's Witness (this happened recently to me), I ASK THEM what that means to them, I don't assume (what's that saying about u and me?)
You don't get respect by making assumptions and assigning stereotypes to people. Or by being arrogant and professing to KNOW what other people think or feel.
7 February 2011 at 4:07 am
We could probably analyse this discussion in terms of
"definition of atheism", which is concise but not very informative or interesting
v.
"implications of atheism", which tells a lot more about a person's views and motivations, but may only be partially true for any given atheist.
7 February 2011 at 5:49 am
So testify. Or try a little harder than that kind of absurd distinction.
7 February 2011 at 6:57 am
What do you find absurd about it?
7 February 2011 at 8:40 am
Daniel, that's a damn good post!
I'm impressed.
7 February 2011 at 10:05 am
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed.
Some of my other posts are good, too.
7 February 2011 at 10:32 am
whats got your knickers in a knot, anonymous?
I like Daniel's cartoon posts the best – not too much reading ;P
7 February 2011 at 5:14 pm
I don't even like the word "atheist". Do I have to call myself an adragonist because I don't believe in the existence of dragons outside of a fictional or mythological existence?
8 February 2011 at 1:32 am
I'm not sure the distinction you make is that meaningful, but I leave that to you.
Also, to my thinking, another distinction that you draw, between "belief in no" and "no belief", in order to avoid what you see as a logical pitfall of theism, is a little precariously balanced over a fine edge. Does it really bear out in a sustained argument? Leave that one to you too.
8 February 2011 at 7:03 am
This is a really nicely argued post Daniel. I don't read PZ and am per se not interested in atheism but I agree with you that dictionary definitions are useful. Perhaps this is, because like you, I am interested in how language is formative. It's damn powerful.
Eats, shoots and leaves
Eats shoot and leaves
Atheism is not a "belief" in "no gods".
It's "no belief" in "gods".
This is not about definitions, it's about the complex relationship between words and reality, or words and actions, or words and experience etc etc.
I am a Buddhist, as you know. That is entirely compatible with also being an atheist. Atheism does not per se provide any 'practices', but it liberates one from being drawn into practices which are casuist and sophist at best. I feel I need some way of practising living well. Atheism does not provide that, but it also does not preclude it as some would argue.
Thank you for a great start to the day!
11 February 2011 at 5:14 pm
I'm so bored with atheism.
Weak atheism, sitting back on scientific rationalism and finely balanced dictionary concepts avoids any ideological engagement.
Strong atheism, admitting its belief and value systems, still fails to take responsibility for the consequences of its own ideological positions. Yawn, it is worse than theism, that at least knows its weaknesses. Would the world REALLY be better without religion, as they assume?
And worse, neither atheist views have much to add to the betterment of human life.
So is atheism's best value as an antithesis to theism? To check, to check, and to challenge the status quo ante?
Like I said, Yawn…
11 February 2011 at 10:27 pm
That has to be the worst argument against atheism I've heard: Argument from personal boredom.
At least atheism isn't as boring as you, Anonymous.
I'm turning off anonymous comments. I have yet to see a useful one, unless the commenter has typed their handle at the bottom. Ugh.
15 February 2011 at 4:39 pm
On your recent post:
"Okay, but if someone puts their position out there, it's fair to comment. What if we couldn't have opinions on other people's opinions? The web would grind to a halt!"
Ummm, touché, you arrogant twat…
15 February 2011 at 11:57 pm
Got a point, Yorrick? Or just being an ass?