Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

[Scott]

Antone wrote: First, if an atheist is merely someone who lacks a belief in God, then what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

In my book atheism and theism are states of belief and agnosticism is a state of ignorance. The theist says that he believes the statement God exists is true, the atheist believes it is false, and the agnostic believes that it is either true or false (that is, that it makes a meaningful assertion) but he does not know which. The non-cognitivist says the statement God exists is without meaning and does not assert a meaningful proposition.

What about negative atheists?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” - John 1:1 (KJV)

. . .

Without the word “God” - God does not exist.

Antone wrote: First, if an atheist is merely someone who lacks a belief in God, then what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

In my book atheism and theism are states of belief and agnosticism is a state of ignorance. The theist says that he believes the statement God exists is true, the atheist believes it is false, and the agnostic believes that it is either true or false (that is, that it makes a meaningful assertion) but he does not know which. The non-cognitivist says the statement God exists is without meaning and does not assert a meaningful proposition.

What about negative atheists?

My understanding is that a negative atheist still believes there are no gods and fits my definition, that is, he believes the statement God exists is false. It's the positive atheist that gives me trouble. Does he say that he knows that God exists is false? If so I believe he is mistaken in that.

[Scott]

I go by the definition of 'positive atheist' given by Antony Flew in his book from 1984, God Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis, in which he writes: "I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter." In other words, a negative atheist neither believes god exists nor believes the statement 'no gods exists' is false. If anyone is aware of an equally or more authoritative definition than Antony Flew's, particularly in regards to credibility of the author or age of the apparent term-coinage, then please let me know.

I would describe one who claims to know the statement 'one or more gods exist' is false to be a gnostic atheist as it seems the most unequivocal label for them. (The qualifiers strong/hard are in my analysis ill-defined and equivocally are used sometimes to refer merely to positive atheists and other times specifically to gnostic atheists.)

I go by the definition of 'positive atheist' given by Antony Flew in his book from 1984, God Freedom and Immortality: A Critical Analysis, in which he writes: "I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter." In other words, a negative atheist neither believes god exists nor believes the statement 'no gods exists' is false.

The use of the word negative atheist to mean someone who is simply not a theist seems to include, along with those who disbelieve in the existence of gods, agnostics who take no position on the existence of gods. I find it hard to believe that Flew really meant to include agnostics in the category of atheists and it is not in my experience the way most actually use the term.

I think Flew meant the term positive atheist to refer to someone who asserts that no god exists, that is, who claims knowledge of that as a fact and that he meant the term negative atheist to refer to someone who believes no god exists, but does not claim to know it for a fact.

The Greeks did have a word atheos and used it to mean denying the gods. The Oxford English Dictionary also defines atheist as one who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God. I would take it that one who disbelieves is a negative or weak atheist and one who denies is a positive or strong atheist. Denial would of course presuppose disbelief.

Flew himself in the second (1999) edition of his Dictionary of Philosophy does not define or even mention the terms negative and positive atheist. There he defines atheism as

"The rejection of belief in God, whether on the grounds that it is meaningful but false to say that God exists, or, as the logical positivists held, that it is meaningless and hence neither true nor false."

He also defines agnosticism as

"The thesis that, contrary to what atheists and theists alike assume, it is either in practice or in principle impossible to know whether or not God exists."

Xris:

OK, so you seem to be talking specifically about evolution and the development of life on Earth. And you seem to take quite a radically different view on that subject from what might be called the standard scientific view of evolution by natural selection. The standard view is that evolution is not forward looking. Organisms are adapted well to their environments (if, indeed, they are) because the one's that weren't so well adapted (i.e. almost all of them) did not pass on their characteristics to the same degree. Evolution is blind.

Your view, as you've suggested, is pretty much the same as the theistic one, with the exception that you're unhappy with the anthropomorphic nature of the Gods of religions like Christianity.

You talk about a common determination to succeed and achieve what you call perfection. What do you mean by that? Do you think organisms have a long term plan as to how they're going to become better and better adapted to their current environments through successive generations? Or do you think that some entity that you could call Nature has such a plan? Or do you think that Nature has a long term plan that is not just about adaptation to the present environment, but some other goal that we cannot know?

Hi Steve not been too well last few days so if I appear slightly discordant excuse me. I am not concluding that nature has intentions in any human terms but it definitely succeeds. From the most humble of origins the most complex of creatures has emerged, can we really state it is a series of random events with no determined effort?

I think that atheism can be supported logically, because there is no way to prove beyond a doubt, or without a degree of faith, that God exists. We humans generally tend to function on evidence based reasoning and rational logic in order to form our beliefs and to decipher what we believe is true or false. Therefore, without being able to subject the idea of “God” to that process of evidence based reasoning and rational logic, how can the atheistic position be faulted? If there was a way that the existence of God could be proven beyond any doubt, then the position of atheism could no longer be supported logically. However, that cannot / has not been done. In my opinion, faith will always be required to believe in God.

Hi Xris. Hope you're feeling better. No time to discuss this now because I have to go and take part in an attempt to get the largest ever number of people singing and dancing to "Grease" in one place. (Life on on Earth is weird isn't it?)

But it's interesting to think about what we mean by "random events" and why we (a lot of us) object to the idea that complex life could exist without another complex thing creating it. Laters.

Your the one that I want..ooo,ooo.Best of luck Steve.

Antone wrote: First, if an atheist is merely someone who lacks a belief in God, then what is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

In my book atheism and theism are states of belief and agnosticism is a state of ignorance. The theist says that he believes the statement God exists is true, the atheist believes it is false, and the agnostic believes that it is either true or false (that is, that it makes a meaningful assertion) but he does not know which. The non-cognitivist says the statement God exists is without meaning and does not assert a meaningful proposition.

Interesting take, but I don't agree. How is stating an unjustified belief less of a state of ignorance than stating a justified belief that you don't have enough information to justify a belief?

This is, perhaps, a convoluted question... but it is more than just fancy double-talk.

The way I see it, there are two basic types of ignorance. (1) is ignorance that is based on a lack of experience or evidence. (2) is ignorance that is based on a lack of rational thinking.

In the first sense, a child cannot help being ignorant; and they are not to blame for coming into the world as uninformed, ignorant beings. Barring some supernatual occurence, there is simply no possible way they could have the experience needed to avoid being ignorant. But an adult (who is not retarded) has had time to learn the things that they think are important enough to learn--so they can help being ignorant, if they chose; and thus there is necessarily a certain level of blame that can be assigned to them, if they are still ignorant.

In the second sense, there is no difference between the adult and the child. If they fail to think rationally, they are being ignorant.

I would argue that agnostics are guilty of being ignorant in the first sense, but not in the second. While atheists and theists are not only ignorant in the first sense (it is impossible not to be since there is no evidence for either position) but they also choose to be ignorant in the second sense, since they are assuming knowledge where there is no empirical evidence.

So while it is not wrong to say that agnostics are in a "state of ignorance" I believe it is wrong to deny that the same is true of atheists or theists... or to imply that their form of ignorance is somehow supperior than the agnostic's, simply because they believe an unjustified belief... instead of believing a justified one.

-- Updated Sun May 20, 2012 11:28 am to add the following --

...I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'.

There are some serious problems with this position.

Amoral can be used to refer to something that is (1) not to be judged by criteria of morality; or is deemed to be neither moral or immoral. But it can also be defined as (2) without moral sense or principles; incapable of distinguishing between right or wrong.

So for instance, a severely retarded adult who has been raised by perverts may engage in what we would normally consider immoral behavior without having the social understanding to realize that it is wrong. Thus, his behavior would not be immoral--intentionally violating propriety--but amoral.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you want to include this type of thinking in your definition of atheist.

...an atheist becomes...someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

First, I agree with Prismatic on this. By defining atheist this way we reduce all beliefs in God to absolutes... black and white. You either believe God exists or you don't. No room for something in between, or even for those who've never bothered to think about it at all. For example, it would not be entirely unreasonable to assume that my cat is an atheist, since she has never professed a belief in God.

Second, if you're going to create such a concept, I think a better term for it might be an anti-theist.

think Flew meant the term positive atheist to refer to someone who asserts that no god exists, that is, who claims knowledge of that as a fact and that he meant the term negative atheist to refer to someone who believes no god exists, but does not claim to know it for a fact.

This seems like a more reasonable supposition--unless Flew's purpose is entirely ideologically motivated, with the intended purpose to discredit (somehow) theists.

Scott, it should be noted that theism already refers to belief in a God or gods. So I don't see why we need a new term to refer specifically to the belief in gods. Unlike Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, which implies a specific belief in a specific God--theism is the belief in ANY God or pantheon of gods. If you want to make this distinction, I suggest using the terms monotheist and pantheist.

Monotheism already has the basic definition you're implying... and pantheism (while having a slightly different definition) is close enough that I don't think anyone would have a real problem understanding what you meant, even without including a defintion--particularly when you shift from the [-eism] ending to the [-eist] ending. That way, you're not muddying the waters with defintiions that are not only confusing but contrary to the way the words are already defined in common usage.

-- Updated Sun May 20, 2012 11:35 am to add the following --

I think that atheism can be supported logically, because there is no way to prove beyond a doubt, or without a degree of faith, that God exists.

It may be logical to deny that the belief in theism is justified, but this does not imply that the belief that there is no God is somehow justified.

There is no obvious empirical evidence that an orphan has a father, but it would be foolish to imply that this means we can logically assume that they didn't have one.

In my opinion, faith will always be required to believe in God.

Just as faith is required to belied that God definitley does not exist.

There is more to be said about your quote from Flew's book, in particular his etymology. It does have a bearing on my difference with him over the meaning of the word, but it's arcane and may not be of interest to you.

"I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."

1. The word atheist has existed in English longer than the word theist. Atheist entered the language at least by 1571 and theist not until a century later. Atheist then ought not to be read as the particle 'a' + the English 'theist,' but as a word taken directly from the Greek atheos. It is not a "Greco-English" word at all, but a perfectly good Greek word absorbed into English.

2. The Greek words atheos is used just once in the Bible where it is translated as without God:

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

(the actual phrase is ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ which could be translated as atheists in the world.)

3. The Greek word atheos and atheoi are used in the opening of Plutarch's On Superstition and possibly made its way into English through Sir John Cheke's 1540 translation of Plutarch into Latin.

4. The meaning of the Greek atheos is literally "without god" and was used to indicate someone who worshiped no god or someone who denied gods, in particular the state gods. The Greek word atheoi meaning 'atheists' was applied to Christians because they did not accept the state gods of Rome.

5. Flew's examples are the "Greco-English words amoral, atypical and asymmetrical. The ancient Greek particle 'a' was a privative, not a simple negation. It indicated absence and we retain that usage in English. An amoral person is one without morals; one who violates morals is immoral. The word asymmetrical means without symmetry and unsymmetrical means not symmetric. (In everyday usage the two are synonymous.) Similarly we have atypical and untypical, which seem to be used interchangeably.

To sum up, defining atheist as one who is not a theist is a false etymology and does not reflect the long history of the word. A better definition would be one without (belief in) God, but that also suffers from the defect of appearing to include agnostics, and that is why I prefer to define atheist as one who believes the statement God exists is false.

A dogmatic stance on any subject can be very embarrassing given time. I only claim to be agnostic simply because I am never sure of anything in life. I am so jealous of those who are so certain of the truth, whatever that may be.

Sorry that I wont read all replies to this thread and answer everybody and quote all interesting thoughts. Anyway, the title of the topic prompted me to answer, because it is interesting itself.

If you were a non-believer would you say that belief in gods cannot be logically supported?

Btw, "logic" is a fine buzzword.

If you were a non-believer would you say that belief in gods cannot be logically supported?

Definitely. Evidence is lacking for any kind of supernatural entities and the word God refers to nothing in our experience.

What if you are a believer at some point of your life and after a certain period of time you become a non-believer. Then your "believerism" is triggered again by something that affects your "understanding of things". Something happens again and you shift towards an agnosticism. Round and around. Whatever you claim as "a truth" is what you believe is a truth you pursue in a given period of time and your given state of mind.

C'mon guys, there's more to squeeze out of your forums that you believe.