A Lesson on Definitions
Image via Wikipedia
A friend recently sent me a request in an email:
Adrian, hope you are well. Would you be kind and help me answer this email from a Christian who thinks Atheists are intellectually dishonest – his reasoning is a first for me.
Take care, Robert
Atheists? Intellectually dishonest? At first I think that perhaps this theist has come across an atheist who made some ridiculous statement, and has assumed all atheists think like that. The attached theist “argument” provided all the answers:
Robert, I know Christians have done evil as well! I’m a sinner Saved by grace! By the way it is impossible to be an atheist and be intellectually honest! You can be agnostic at best! In order to be an atheist you have to know everything there is to know! Since you and I do not Know everything there is to know, it is possible for God to exist in the area you do not know: BY DEFINITION AGNOSTIC AT BEST if you are intelectually honest!? I believe you are!!!!!
As I read the paragraph, I realized that this particular theist hadn’t come across a stupid atheist, but rather hadn’t come across a dictionary in what seems like quite a while. He’s confused the meaning of the word ‘atheist’ for starters, and then confused the meaning of the word ‘agnostic’ such that both are mutually exclusive. In his world, you can either be an atheist, or an agnostic (so I’m not sure where that puts him as a theist).
My response was a quick lesson on definitions.
This fellow seems to have his definitions a little off. Firstly, an atheist is simply defined as someone “without gods”, coming from the Greek word “atheos”, meaning ‘a’ (without) and ‘theos’ (gods). Therefore to put any other meaning on the word is to commit intellectual dishonesty yourself. Given that the subject of Gods comes down to a belief (namely theism), to be “without gods” is to not believe in theism. In other words, an atheist is someone who “does not believe in gods”.
The theist in this argument has falsely asserted that all atheists are of the “God does not exist” type, which is a massive error given that most of them do not fall under this category at all. He also makes the wrong assumption that being agnostic is something mutually exclusive to being an atheist, when the complete opposite is the case.
Atheism, as I have previously defined it, is all about belief. Atheists do not “believe” in gods. Agnosticism is the position that certain things in reality (and some agnostics, myself included would say *all* things) are unprovable, in the sense that an absolute position about them cannot be known. I do not deny that absolute knowledge exists, but as an agnostic I deny that fallible and limited beings can ever “know” absolutely what those absolutes are. All knowledge is relative to us, and thus agnosticism is a position not of belief, but of knowledge.
The relationship between knowledge and belief is a simple one. You can have belief without having knowledge, and you can have non-belief without having knowledge. For example, I could be in a dark room, a mile below the surface on the Earth, and espouse the belief that it was raining on the surface, without having any knowledge (relative or absolute) that it was. Likewise, I could espouse the opposite belief, that it is not raining on the surface via the same system.
However, to have knowledge, you must also have belief. It is a fallacious statement to say “I know it is raining outside, but I don’t believe it.” Knowledge implies belief, for as Plato wrote, knowledge is “justified, true, belief”.
Thus there are 4 positions you can have concerning belief and knowledge of God:
Agnostic Atheism – “I don’t believe in God, but I don’t make any claim to have knowledge of the existence of such a being.”
Gnostic Atheism – “I don’t believe in God, and I know such a being doesn’t exist.”
Agnostic Theism – “I believe in God, but I don’t make any claim to have knowledge of the existence of such a being.”
Gnostic Theism – “I believe in God, and I know such a being exists.”
The theist is correct in his argument if you have claimed Gnostic Atheism, and likewise if someone has claimed Gnostic Theism. To know a non-temporal being existed or didn’t exist, you would have to have knowledge of the non-temporal, and as temporal beings this knowledge is beyond our capabilities.
If however, like most intelligent atheists and theists you meet, you claim agnostic atheism or theism, then you are being intellectually honest. You are admitting the possibility (however small) that God may exist (or not exist as the agnostic theist would say), because you realise that such knowledge is impossible for us to know.
This is the original argument Thomas Huxley made when he defined the word Agnostic, and the argument was visualized very well by Bertrand Russell and is known as “Russell’s teapot” (Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot), which deals primarily with the reasons why the burden of proof is on the claimant, but uses agnosticism to reason such a position.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=557f541d-8dc1-43bc-b382-3b764ccef675)
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
Well done Adrian
Great post. I’ve dealt with this same argument before and there is something I can add that may be of help:
Drawing a distinction between a deistic (non-intervening) god and a theistic (intervening) god is a major point in this argument. The theist is correct to say that one would have to have knowledge of the entire universe to say that a deistic god does not exist.
However, an intervening theistic god (at least as it is understood by most theists–not the metaphorical or proximate/ ultimate cause dichotomy drawn by some theistic philosophers) does supposedly intrude upon empirical reality in the here and now hence allowing for judgments to be made on its existence or non-existence (or at least on claims logically connected to its existence).
I’m not saying that this type of reasoning makes gnostic atheism a 100% position, but I do think that it can move the epistemic slider closer to the gnostic end of the spectrum. Vic Stenger makes a similar argument in God: The Failed Hypothesis that he called possible and impossible gods.
The problem I see with your empirical point is that most theistic philosophers would say (and rightly so) that such gods "intrude" through what we perceive as naturalistic means. In other words, God did create us, but used evolution as the process, etc. That, or such non-temporal beings are capable of changing time itself to "hide" their actions from us.
The non-temporal is by very definition unknowable through empiricism.
Hi Adrian,
That's what I meant when I brought up the "proximate/ ultimate" parsing. Theist philosophy that I have read puts it in terms of we can supposedly see the proximate natural causes but can infer supernatural agency as the "ultimate cause" behind it. I've never heard it expressed as non-temporal before.
I don't think bringing up the deist/ theist definitions is a home run argument here by any means, but I think it can shed light on new areas and open up new arguments that are ultimately in favor of atheism.
I kind of sympathise with your theist here, because even though few of us actually take a gnostic atheist position, we tend to say things like "there isn't any god' or "god doesn't exist". I know I do it all the time, and it's hard not to interpret such remarks the way the letter writer did.
The problem I have is that no one ever defines what they mean by "god". Especially a pantheistic notion like Gaia, since obviously it does exist, sorta …..
I think your gnostic theism terminology is a little misleading, as there was a particular brand of theism called gnosticism whose beliefs were more like:
There is a God, I have special knowledge of him *and you don't*.
As a Christian, I actually agree with most of what you say on this post. However, I'd like to see you interact more with few garden-variety Christians and more who have actually thought things through (and yes, there are plenty of them).
It also depends on what kind of 'knowledge' we're talking about. You seem to be saying that since we can't know anything for sure, then gnosticism at either end is an untenable position. Well yes, but we rarely talk about such absolute knowledge. On practical terms, I say that I know that Margaret Thatcher used to be Prime Minister. On the same level (or definition of the word' knowledge'), a theist who claims to have had a personal experience of God would say they know God exists, their experience is evidence. But even on this level, an atheist could not claim that they know a god doesn't exist, because the evidence for such a position would require exhaustive knowledge. So gnostic theism is a more tenable (if delusional) position than gnostic atheism.
On a similar vein many people conflate Dawkins' 1-7 scale with levels of fundamentalism, in that a 1 would be like a terrorist or something. That's not true, a 1 merely refers to someone who knows that God exists. In a way this scale has contributed to misunderstanding because it puts atheism on the same scale as agnosticism.
I've actually never met a gnostic atheist, do you know any?
Relative knowledge is not absolute (by very definition), and therefore cannot be held as such. The theist who claims that their experience is all the evidence *they* need is still adhering to agnosticism, and is not a gnostic (in the modern sense of the word). They understand that what they espouse is relative, not absolute knowledge.
On practical terms, you say you know that Margaret Thatcher used to be Prime Minister, but can you say with absolute certainty that this is absolutely the case? I hold that you simply cannot. What your mind tells you is a memory of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, or is the knowledge that Margaret Thatcher used to be Prime Minister, could easily itself be a delusion.
An atheist could claim relatively that a God does not exist for them, and this would be perfectly true if they were being intellectually honest about their atheism. If they don't see any evidence for a god, they can say that to them, god does not exist. It is only when an atheist makes an absolute statement about the existence of god that things become less valid.
I fail to see the difference between a theist who claims to "know" god exists relatively based on evidence they have seen, and an atheist who claims to "know" god exists relatively based on the lack of evidence (or indeed, evidence against). This form (if indeed it can be called a form) of gnostic theism is not more tenable than it's counter position of gnostic atheism, as they both rely solely on relative knowledge.
Of course, I deny that these positions are gnostic. I see a clear dividing line between gnostic and agnostic, namely in the use (or claim to use) of absolute and relative knowledge. If claimed absolute knowledge is used to support a position, it is a form of gnosticism, otherwise it is agnosticism.
As for meeting gnostic atheists, I have met people who claim it, but a few probing questions get them to admit the flaw in their position.
So what's the point in the term gnosticism, if we can't know anything? I find your definition narrow to the point of uselessness.
My point is that using this useful definition of the word 'know', plenty of people can call themselves gnostic theists, because all they need is to meet god, that's enough evidence to say they know. But noone could say they know god doesn't exist from the lack of evidence, because they'd need to know everything (he could be hiding in some corner somewhere), and noone claims to know everything.
By your definition, you're only a gnostic if you claim to have absolute knowledge. That's noone.
Gnosticism isn't a tenable position, but some people do claim it. We still have a word for people who think the moon landing was faked, even though the claim is so preposterous there is no doubt amongst rational people that it happened.
I've certainly met people online and in real life who claim absolute knowledge of the existence of God, and they usually do it through the use of logical proofs (arguing from a point that logic is a basis of absolute knowledge itself).
Just because a certain position is useless, doesn't make it any less of a position to hold. It's wrong (very wrong), and most agnostics can easily poke holes in gnostic arguments. Truthfully, I think we are all agnostics; some of us just don't like admitting it, and prefer to cling onto the hope of absolute knowledge.
I think I see the point your friend is trying to make, but I think it comes from a misunderstanding of how most atheists decide what is true and what to believe in. We don't hold that everything must be proven with absolute certainty and evidence to be accepted. That is often not possible outside of mathematics. Rather, we decide our belief on the basis that it needs to be the proposition most supported by reason and evidence and also the one that stands up to rational criticism the best. If we decide that something is extremely likely, we won't ignore it, just because we can't prove beyond all possible doubt. The alternative is to say we can never know anything. I think just because you can't know things to the n-th degree of certainty doesn't mean you know nothing at all. Knowing something is highly probably is still a form of knowledge.
I really like this post, and have written about similar things in my own writing. I think it is an extremely common error in the atheism/theism debate. But I would like you to push this distinction further. If you can fully accept that your belief that god does not exist, your atheism, is ultimately a subjective opinion and has no bearing on whether or not he actually exists, then why is it so important for others to share your beliefs? Or rather, why don't those who recognize that whatever their belief system is, it is a subjective, rather than objective one, just promote the idea of relativism and acceptance of all belief systems, as long as they don't interfere with others?
It's a fallacy to say that because beliefs are subjective, then we should treat all views equally. We may not know that anything is true for sure but we know that some things are more likely to be true than others.
On why not allowing people to believe whatever they want, well generally atheists do. I personally don't care if someone believes in God or not, it's just that your beliefs inform your actions. People who don't think critically about their beliefs are much more likely to make poor choices which affect other people.
I think this debate shows how our species is very good at tying itself up in philosophical knots and wasting it's time getting dizzy going around in circles. To me it's SO simple: If something seems likely based on physical evidence, then you can proceed 'as if' you have proof. If something seems unlikely based on physical evidence, then you proceed 'as if'' it is false. Religion can only exist if you judge wishful thinking to be as valid as physical evidence, because there is no evidence for anything supernatural outside the human imagination. Anyone who says there is desperately needs to believe… much more than they need to accept reality. Stop getting dizzy and enjoy every second you have, it'll be over before you know it.
I really loved this explanation, but I do have to say I can sympathize with the theist who made the original incorrect statement. I have known what you might call "militant atheists" who not only said no god existed, but claimed to know for a fact that no god existed, and berated others who claimed that there was a god, or that it was impossible to know whether or not god existed. He's incorrect in his definitions, but if he's met atheists like some I've met, his definition of an atheist probably came from those experiences.
So you guys believe everything just happened to come by? Living things and Humans just happened to be existed? Do you know the probability and the time span that would take for such a happenstance; say only for only one protein molecule? Living things got loads of these molecules, so how can you say it just happened? You guys know that Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY? Still not 100% proven, how can you take that theory as fact. Even Charles Darwin didn't believe in this theory full of missing links, as was said in a letter sent one of his friends, but he said it did help in his study. Today, many modern scientists are against the theory.
I'm guessing you're a troll, since your comment has nothing to do with the OP, but I'll answer your points anyway in case someone reading this genuinely wants a response.
About how long abiogenesis would take/how unlikely it would be. First you have to find out how unlikely it would be on one planet (that's what you refer to in your comment). But then you have to divide that probability by the number of planets where it could have happened. It should not be seen as a coincidence that, as living beings, we live on a planet where abiogenesis has occurred. This is called the weak anthropic principle. So let's use the common creationist analogy that the chances of abiogenesis happening are like dropping a load of scrabble pieces on the floor and having them spell out a line from Shakespeare. Well, it is a bit like that, except that you'd have to be constantly dropping scrabble pieces over and over again for billions of years, on possibly billions of planets.
Until we know a) how unlikely this is to happen on one planet, and b) how many suitable planets there are in the universe, we have no idea how unlikely our existence is. It could in fact be a statistical certainty. You may also be interested to know that they've recently found amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) on a comet in space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ZzrZcgH2Q&fe...
Your second part is discrediting evolution, which is only partly related to abiogenesis. Charles Darwin never denied his theory, but even if he did it wouldn't matter. The evidence stands on its own. Do you think noone's done any work on evolution since Darwin? Repeated surveys have shown that scientists are more likely to believe in evolution than the general population, and that the better scientists (ie members of the Royal Society, National Academy etc) are more likely still to believe in evolution.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just to clarify, a theory in science does not mean the same thing as it does in general language, it is the highest regard a hypothesis can be held. So basically facts pertain to what happens, whereas theory pertains to how it happens. That species change over time and evolve into new species is a fact, that's been observed. A lot. But exactly how it happens (as in natural selection) is still a theory. It's by far the best theory, in fact the only one proposed that could even hypothetically explain our observations. It's also backed up by a huge amount of evidence, which you can find in the following two links (first one is all the evidence you could ever want, the second is a very basic summary of some of the best evidence that I wrote for someone else)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php...
I hope you also know that gravity is also a theory, and expect you to be jumping out of a fifth storey window to prove that it's not true.
There is a much simpler way to explain the distinction in the definitions.
Incorrect definition of atheism: "I believe in no Gods".
Correct definition: "I do not believe in any Gods".
Most theists operate by 'belief' and seem to think that we do, too.