Even Free-Thinkers Can Be Wrong
Freethoughtpedia is meant to be an encyclopedia for free-thought related things, such as atheism. Their article on atheism however, is filled with misconceptions and wrong definitions.
They firstly define atheism as a “lack of belief in a deity” when the universally accepted definition is that of “disbelief in gods” (note the singular vs plural). They use this definition to make the following case:
Likewise a Christian may be a strong atheist towards the Hindu gods.
This is a massive error in a definition. It is true that Christians are strong disbelievers in the Hindu gods, but that does not make them atheists. You cannot be both a Christian and an atheist because Christians are theists, and the two are incompatible. Atheism rejects all gods, not specific ones.
The next misconception is the one that being agnostic means you are “not sure” about the existence of gods. However, they take it to the max with this paragraph.
Furthermore, agnosticism is a type of atheism. Mainstream media and many people will rarely make note of this because many choose to use the term agnostic to describe their lack of belief due to the negative connotations the media associates with the term atheist, but technically agnostics are atheists: You cannot believe in something you are not sure exists!
Agnosticism is not a type of atheism. It does not cover disbelief in the existence of gods, it covers whether or not the existence of gods can be known. For instance, if I were to claim that outside reality (the universe as we know it) there existed a fairy cake, you would have to be agnostic about it. There is no way currently that we can see what is outside reality (or if indeed there is an outside), so you cannot either prove or disprove my statement. The same applies to God. Since God is supposedly unseen and unobservable, we cannot detect it, and so one must remain agnostic about it to be rational.
The second thing that should be noted about this paragraph is that you can believe in something if you aren’t sure it exists. Knowledge implies belief, not the other way around. Knowledge is often considered a subset of belief, mainly because it is the result of rational justified belief. To have knowledge you must first believe it to be true, otherwise it just wouldn’t work. However, you can believe in something without having knowledge of it. This is precisely how science works. If scientists simply gave up believing in their theories because they hadn’t got enough evidence to prove them, then we wouldn’t get anywhere.
Technology works on the same premise. People look at a current system / product and say “I believe I could do better than that”. They then go away, start thinking about how to approach the design / implementation, and eventually come up with a better system / product.
There are some that claim you can be an “agnostic theist“, implying someone believes in gods but recognizes that the knowledge of gods’ existence may or will never be known. While this is technically true, we are unaware of any practical use of such a term, as the generic definition of [deist] seems to fit that bill.
They manage to get a correct definition of agnosticism into their argument against agnostic theism which seems a bit bizarre, not to mention contradictory. There are plenty of people who are agnostic theists, and an argument from ignorance isn’t going to work for an encyclopedia. As for the definition of a deist, it is simply a person who believes that there is a god (or gods) but they have no control over the universe. They simply created it and for whatever reason do not (or cannot) control anything in it. These people are not theists, and whether they are agnostic or gnostic about their beliefs depends on whether they think the evidence for such a god is available.
I think the idea of a freethoughtpedia is great. As long as sources are cited and proper definitions are used. Free-thought means you do not subscribe to any doctrines. Dictionaries do not count as doctrines, neither do any form of research paper. Use them. At the moment, freethoughtpedia looks more like conservapedia than wikipedia, and everyone knows which of those is the more reliable…
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
Loading ...
Wow - someone needs to do something about that. But then again, I’ve never used freethoughtpedia and probably never will. Like conservapedia, I think that the idea of a point of view encyclopedia is just a bad idea.
Anyway. Really great post. It is important to remember that we can all be wrong and we must be willing to correct our mistakes and move on.
James
29 Aug 08 at 11:53 pm (GMT)
Thanks for the using your blog to correct these misconceptions.
I would like to address one or two issues that you have raised in this blog …
> … if I were to claim that outside reality there existed a fairy cake, you would have to be agnostic about it.
I wouldn’t be agnostic about it. I would be completely certain that it doesn’t exist. Reality is the set of *that which is real*. To state that something is outside of this is to state that it is *not* real, (by definition).
The outside of reality is everything that is not real.
To remain agnostic about theistic god(s) is irrational. It is equivalent of things *existing* outside of reality or square circles.
The qualities of god are incoherent. The properties of god are incompatible and contradictory. No-one is agnostic about square circles.
> Since God is supposedly unseen and unobservable, we cannot detect it, and so one must remain agnostic about it to be rational.
If “unseen and unobservable” were the definition of god this statement would be true. But it is not the definition of god. To be agnostic about god is to be irrational. The only rational position is to reject the concept of god as being incoherent in the same way that we must reject the concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
There are lots of things we must remain agnostic about. God is not one of them.
VeridicusX
30 Aug 08 at 1:03 am (GMT)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I talk about “reality” I do not talk about it on the dimensional level, or the quantum level if you will.
The multiple reality theories suggest that there are other realities other than this one. In that case, there could very well be a fairy cake in one of those. This would be “outside” our reality.
I’ll give you another example though. If I said that somewhere in the universe, there were a swarm of bees that ate unicorns, would you be agnostic about that? Logic dictates that you should be since you have no idea what is in the rest of the universe.
We have very little understanding of the universe. If gods do exist on some higher plane of existence, then how are we to know for certain? Logic dictates that we must remain agnostic about gods, for their very definition puts them out of reach of our understanding.
Adrian Hayter
30 Aug 08 at 1:25 am (GMT)
Freethoughtpedia is a bad idea. We don’t need to create our own version of reality like the Conservapedia does. We live in the real world, and that world is portrayed pretty accurately in good ol’ Wikipedia.
Bevnas
30 Aug 08 at 1:48 am (GMT)
[...] Atheist Blogger wrote a piece today in which he found several flaws with FreeThoughtPedia’s entry on Atheism. I had never heard of FreeThoughtPedia before [...]
anatheist.net » Blog Archive » FreeThoughtPedia?
30 Aug 08 at 2:00 am (GMT)
I think one thing that only adds to the confusion regarding the ‘Christians are atheists to the Hindu gods’ part is the common example we all like from Richard Dawkins:
‘We are all atheists about most of the gods societies have ever believed in — some of us just go one god further.’
Obviously he is misusing the term ‘atheist’ intentionally to try to make it easier to relate to our viewpoint, but it also reinforces the misconception that theists are also ‘atheists’ to other gods.
ThePantsParty
30 Aug 08 at 4:06 am (GMT)
ThePantsParty,
I agree. If you simply substitute the word “disbelievers” for “atheists” in that situation then the statement becomes true. I wish more people used this example.
Adrian Hayter
30 Aug 08 at 4:09 am (GMT)
The use of “atheist” to describe Christians has historical precedent as well. Early Christians were called “atheists” by the Romans since they didn’t believe in the Roman pantheon, for example. The freethoughtpedia’s definition does match a historical, if not rigorous philosophically-defined, usage of the word.
AllMimsy
30 Aug 08 at 2:21 pm (GMT)
#3
Thanks for your comments and clarification Adrian.
The example of “unicorn eating bees” is a perfect example of things that I must remain agnostic about.
Unicorn eating bees are not a god hypothesis though. One can label anything “god” but it is not what we usually mean when we say the word god.
Almost everyone seems to be falling into the trap that god is a concept that one must remain agnostic about.
God is not a concept that one can remain agnostic about. The god concept is impossible. Any unverifiable concept that I must remain agnostic about is not god.
There are numerous reasons why one cannot logically be agnostic about god but these two are the easiest to grasp.
1) The Modal Ontological Argument and
2) Incoherence and Inconsistency.
1) The ontological argument shows that to state any doubts about god is to assert the non-existence of god. This is because god is supposed to be the creator/originator of everything and/or is supposed to be omnipresent. (Omnipresence means to exist everywhere including every possible reality). There is therefore, if god is possible, no possible reality (a nod to your clarification) which does not include god, either as a present or historical fact.
To state that it is possible that god does not exist, i.e., to be agnostic, is to assert that god does not exist. You are saying that there is a possible reality in which god does not exist, which is to assert that it is impossible that a omnipresent and/or creator god exists.
2) We cannot rationally accept any arguments that are incoherent and/or inconsistent, (that is, arguments which contradict themselves and/or verifiable facts). To do so is to abandon rationality. Should we do so, no statement can be trusted to have any real meaning.
To state that there is a possible reality ruled over by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a wondrous land full of square circles and quad-angled triangles is to violate rationality.
Likewise, god is a collection of incompatible and incoherent properties: -
An independent omniscient being can and cannot know ignorance or surprise. An independent omnipotent being can and cannot make a curry that is too hot for it to eat.
The theistic god can and cannot know fear or the fear of death because it is both omniscient and omnipotent and is also immortal and omnipresent.
A proof that the theistic god is impossible lies in this question: “Can god commit suicide”?
The “god can only do that which is metaphysically possible” defence is just another proof that god is impossible.
Either god created metaphysical modality or it exists independently of, or in some sense anterior to god.
If god created metaphysical modality, then god does not exist - either it can use its omnipotence to modify or remove metaphysical modality or there was a time when it was not bound by it and god is therefore not immortal - which is a contradiction. If god did *not* create metaphysical modality, then god does not exist, (god is supposed to be the creator/originator of everything); (both of these rebuttals are further proved by the Modal Ontological Argument).
Last Thursday-ism or a Simulation Hypothesis is also not a defence of agnosticism in the usual sense, rather they are statements that we cannot rely on reason or experience and further, that we cannot know anything.
VeridicusX
30 Aug 08 at 2:48 pm (GMT)
The most broad definition of Atheism is a “lack of belief”, which includes the passive (our of ignorance or out of lack of interest/caring) and the active (disbelief).
How is it that the rejection of all Gods, sans one, not constitute an atheistic position, of all Gods sans one?
Ben Abbott
30 Aug 08 at 6:17 pm (GMT)
VeridicusX,
I would agree with you that most theist gods are impossible since they are contradictory. However the term “god” has been loosely defined, and certainly gods like the deist god, who has no known attributes, could exist.
A deist god who isn’t infinitely powerful, isn’t omniscient, but who created the Big Bang and for whatever reason cannot control it, would be no more than a bumbling scientist who lost control of an experiment. However, this still doesn’t stop the god from being our “creator”, and certainly more powerful than us.
If there is a perfectly natural explanation for the universe, I am sure that there will be many who claim that to be God. After all, we once worshipped the Sun (which gave us life).
So I think this debate might be on the realms of going into debating semantics and the definition of gods. Debates on semantics I try extremely hard to avoid because they never end up anywhere. I suspect we both think the same thing, just that you have defined gods your way, and I have defined gods my way. If this is the case, the argument is rather academic :D
One further thing to note.
Surely that is agnosticism then? Any situation in which we cannot know something is grounds for a defense of agnosticism.
Adrian Hayter
30 Aug 08 at 7:57 pm (GMT)
Ben Abbott,
Actually, the most broad definition of atheism is “disbelief in gods”. Given that the status of belief and whether it is default is still in debate, saying that atheism is a “lack” is the suppose that we are all born with a belief in gods.
This is a bit like saying that I believe in God, Moses, every character & event in the Bible, except I do not believe in Jesus Christ. Should I therefore be given the religion of Christianity? No.
Strip away the fundamental property of a religion and you cannot call yourself that religion anymore. There are so many different denominations of Christianity, but all of them believe in Jesus in some way.
To say that you can be atheist and still believe in a god is to go against the fundamental property (actually the only property) of atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in all gods. Any other stance on this is not atheism.
Adrian Hayter
30 Aug 08 at 8:04 pm (GMT)
How is that? … don’t new borns lack belief in the same way an oak tree is?
I interpret “disbelief” to require an active position … meaning that the individual must make decision.
Where is our disconnect here?
Ben Abbott
30 Aug 08 at 9:11 pm (GMT)
Ben,
A three wheeled car “lacks” a tire. A toothbrush without bristles “lacks” bristles. Both the tire and the bristles are elements that define the object as complete. You cannot use a toothbrush without bristles to brush your teeth, nor can you use a car with three wheels to drive (at least not well enough).
To say that atheists “lack” belief is to say that belief is something that humans cannot live without. As atheists do live perfectly fine and at the same level as people with belief, it cannot be an important function that defines a human.
An oak tree does not have any concept of belief to begin with, since it is not a sentient being. An oak tree can be without belief, but that isn’t the same as lacking it. A lack of something indicates that it should be there.
Disbelief is far from an active position. It is simply a word meaning “doesn’t believe”. A new born baby disbelieves in Santa Claus because they do not understand the concept, and so do not believe it. This is passive disbelief, the kind that we all have when it comes to things we have no concept of. As soon as we have a concept of it, disbelief of it is more active.
If you have been an atheist all your life, it is fair to say that you are a passive atheist. The concept of god was one you never believed in.
I on the other hand, was once a theist. I am an active atheist because I had to reject my previous beliefs. I wouldn’t call it a choice, but more of a realization that I didn’t believe any of it anymore.
I do not think disbelief requires any sort of active position. It can be either. I also don’t think that an active position requires a decision, since most people seem to agree that belief isn’t something you can just decide upon. I can’t wake up tomorrow and just “decide” to believe in God, and many theists probably couldn’t wake up and “decide” not to believe.
Adrian Hayter
30 Aug 08 at 9:54 pm (GMT)
I agree with Adrian in that this seems to be largely an argument over semantics.
Most of you people seem much more versed in philosophical terminology than I, so my own stance will probably be seen as unsophisticated, which it certainly is.
For me it all comes down to the simple philosophical idea that no matter what, we cannot know anything absolutely. I always refer to it as the “Matrix Problem” when discussing the limits of scientific knowledge to students - i.e. from a philosophical standpoint, one can never be sure that we are not just in “The Matrix”. All science rests on the assumption that our senses (and extensions of them) portray real information about reality, but it is still only an assumption. Luckily, as Kuhn and the pragmatists before him noted, it seems to work, so we use it.
But for this reason I cannot claim absolute disbelief in some sort of Deistic entity beyond my comprehension. However, based on pragmatism alone, I find it astronomically unlikely such an entity exists.
Atheism to me means absolute disbelief, while agnosticism (or agnostic atheism) means that I do not believe in a God, in fact I find such a being highly improbable, but I cannot rule out all possibility.
Thus I call myself Agnostic Atheist.
Here’s my favorite definition (from wikipedia):
Irradiatus
30 Aug 08 at 11:00 pm (GMT)
Adrian: “To say that atheists “lack” belief is to say that belief is something that humans cannot live without”
Huh?
The point of *my* atheism is that we can live without “belief” :-)
Adian: “Disbelief is far from an active position. It is simply a word meaning “doesn’t believe”. A new born baby disbelieves in Santa Claus because they do not understand the concept, and so do not believe it.”
ahhhhh … no :-(
Disbelief is an active rejection of a claim. A new born is not cognizant enough to “disbelieve” … nor more than my “oak tree” metaphor.
In its broadest definition, atheism is a lack or absence of belief in gods. A rejection of belief is insufficient to encompass all atheists.
Adrian: “A new born baby disbelieves in Santa Claus because they do not understand the concept, and so do not believe it.”
Agreed. They lack belief. They do not reject it. Disbelief is more than an absence of lack.
Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.
The above is a rather standard definition, and requires an active position. A passive position is one of ignorance and/or apathy.
Ben Abbott
31 Aug 08 at 1:18 am (GMT)
@Irradiatus
You make a very good point regarding atheism and agnosticism. Agnostics claim to have no knowledge of the claim. Atheists make a statement of belief … as theists do.
The reality is we are all agnostic, with regards, to the general claim of the existence of at least one god.
Theists and atheists rely upon their own predispositions, perceptions, and knowledge to reach a conclusion as to what is most likely.
Ben Abbott
31 Aug 08 at 1:24 am (GMT)
#11
@Adrian
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my posts. I believe that we are thinking the same thing.
I think that the vagueness of the term “god” means that Atheists have to concede a lot in debate with theists.
We can end up sounding as if we concede the possibility of square circles.
I have in fact referred to myself, in the past, as an Agnostic Atheist. I will return to using the label Agnostic Atheist, because as you correctly point out, people can label anything “god” whether or not I agree that it merits the title.
(Where I proposed a hypothetical world where we cannot know anything, I meant that even agnosticism would be meaningless in that situation).
Thanks Adrian you’ve helped me to arrive at a better understanding of the term “Agnostic Atheist”!
VeridicusX
31 Aug 08 at 1:37 am (GMT)
That’s exactly what I mean! By claiming that atheism is a “lack” of belief you are suggesting that this belief in god is something that comes naturally. You cannot lack something that was never meant to be there in the first place, and since we have already deduced that newborns do not believe in gods, then atheism cannot possibly be a lack.
I would accept your argument that atheism is an absence of belief. Absence of belief is very different from a lack of belief:
Lack: deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
Absence: state of being away or not being present.
A lack of belief is something missing, something supposed to be there. An absence of belief is simply a belief that isn’t present.
Adrian Hayter
31 Aug 08 at 1:43 am (GMT)
@VeridicusX
I use the term “agnostic atheist” only when I want a detailed description of my stance on god. “Atheist” is easier to say in conversation, and people understand what you mean :D
Adrian Hayter
31 Aug 08 at 1:47 am (GMT)
Adrian, I realize you didn’t intend to … but please do not tell pretend to tell *me* what I intended to say.
If there is some point of confusion, please ask.
My point is that the lack of belief is what comes naturally to a new born as well as to an “oak tree”.
Disbelief only comes as a the result of a choice.
Adrian: “Absence of belief is very different from a lack of belief”
Check out the definition of each word; lack and absence.
They are synonyms.
Ben Abbott
31 Aug 08 at 2:32 am (GMT)
My apologies, I could have phrased it better.
I agree with you that newborns and oak trees have no belief in god. However, the word “lack” suggests something is missing, something is wrong, etc. You cannot lack anything naturally. For instance, humans are born with 2 arms. This is natural. For a human to be born without an arm, they would lack an arm.
Since every newborn is born without a belief in god, we can assume that this is natural. Therefore you cannot say they “lack” something which wasn’t meant to be there.
As for the definitions of lack and absence, I quoted them in my previous response. You should be aware that the definition for “lack” uses the word “absence”, and synonyms are never used to define each other (it would be completely pointless). Yes, they are similar words, but the word “lack” is more commonly used to describe something that was meant to be there, rather than absence, which is more commonly used to mean something that simply isn’t there.
Now that the discussion has turned to semantics, I’m pulling out of it. I do not engage people in semantic debates anymore. If there is one thing I can speak from experience about, it is that everyone uses a different dictionary, and everyone has been brought up to understand certain words differently. Semantic debates are circular, they never resolve anything.
Adrian Hayter
31 Aug 08 at 2:46 am (GMT)