Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

[Scott]

In regards to the question of what agnosticism is: When in special reference to religion, an 'agnostic' is someone who claims to not know -- or that nobody can know -- whether or not a god exists, but says nothing of belief. In general, the term actually is a broad epistemological philosophy about the capacity pf knowledge about many things not just gods. Nobody can possibly argue that the term is mutually exclusive with atheist or theist as there are many agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. In fact, I bet almost all atheists and many theists also happen to be agnostic, i.e. only believe not claim to know. Even Dawkins admits he doesn't know that no gods exist. There is difference between believing and not knowing, believing and knowing, and neither believing nor knowing. Granted, in practice, someone who identifies as an agnostic is likely someone who will not publicly admit to being atheist or theist, and it is more of an understandably dodgy answer since I agree discussing such things in most social settings is a faux paw which tells as quite a bit about the agnostic who chooses to dodge the question in this way. It's like if I asked if you believe O.J. Simpson is guilty, and you dodge the question by answering, "I don't know for sure either way;" thus intentionally leaving open the specification of whether you believe one way or the other way (like Dawkins about god) but don't know or simply are withholding belief as all.

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.

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.

No, Flew was very clear about that. I don't see how you could read that as being even remotely possible from the quote. He was defining negative atheist NOT as someone who believes the statement, 'no god exists' is false but doesn't claim to know, but rather Flew was defining negative atheist as someone who simply does not believe the statement, 'one or more gods exist' (i.e. one who has not a theist) as opposed to positive atheists who believe (but still like Dawkins often don't claim to know) that no gods exist. The quote seems dead clear to me about that, but feel free to read the entire section or search for any other definitions of "negative atheist".

****

Antone, I didn't coin the term negative atheist as I feel your reply seems to suggest. The quote is decades old from Anthony Flew. Logically speaking, one either believes a statement to be true or not. Calling this thinking black and white doesn't change the fact that it is undeniably true in the a priori sense. However, one needn't admit whether or not they believe the statement, 'god exists' is true; in addition to declining to answer at all people can use dodgy answers like responding, "I don't know whether or not a god exists," i.e. admitting to being an agnostic without further specification.

Additionally, it's not black and white once we consider the spectrum with all sorts of shades of gray between the strongest theist imaginable and the strongest atheist imaginable:

Gnostic Theists
Non-Gnostic Theists
Negative Atheists
Negative Implicit Atheists
Negative Explicit Atheists
Positive Atheists
Gnostic Atheists

***

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.

What about the Greek word theos?

The meaning of the Greek atheos is literally "without god" and was used to indicate someone who worshiped no god or [...]

Yes, I think that's another way of defining negative atheism and works with Flew's definition. One who is not a theist is one who is without god.

A better definition would be one without (belief in) God, but

I think it is the same definition just different words. One who is not a theist one who is without (belief in) God.

Similarly, an apathetic person could be synonymously defined as one who does not have feelings (pathy) or one who is without feelings (pathy). Both are equally distinct from antipaty and ambivalence.

In contrast, positive atheists not only do not believe the statement, 'at least one god exists,' is true but also actively believe the statement is false. Unlike a mere negative atheist, a positive atheists has a belief one way or the other. Even more extreme are the gnostic atheists who actually claim to know that no god exists. Even Richard Dawkins isn't a gnostic atheist. He also clearly isn't a negative atheist. He's between; he's a positive atheist. In fact, I think there are almost no gnostic atheists at all. It's the smallest group of atheists there are by far, I bet. Even many theists don't claim to know that there is god, but I bet they are a little more likely to enter into the very extreme position than atheists because of the mysticism and so-called faith and all.

EMTe:

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

There's more in heaven and earth than is dreampt of in our forums, eh Horatio?

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.

I don't think this is about what is actually evident in practice, but about what logically follows from the evidence, whatever that evidence might be. I don't see anything wrong with saying that belief in something in the absence of evidence cannot be logically supported. Obviously new evidence might come to light and one might thereby turn from being a non-believer to being a believer. That doesn't alter the fact that believing something to be true in the absence of evidence cannot be logically supported.

Anyway, personally, speaking as a non-believer, I think that belief in gods can be logically supported because people don't necessarily believe things because they are true. They believe things because it makes them happy and, they think, creates beneficial outcomes. Most people would much rather be happy than right.

I think that belief in gods can be logically supported

Ah. So God is something you can "logically support" and the proof of God's existence is that you "logically support" its existence. I hope you phillys read what you write, at least once at a time.

EMTe: No. I don't think I said anything similar to that. And don't call me Phyllis!

Hi EMTe

What you are describing is either someone very immature or badly in need of medical help. Just what do you expect to be squeezed out?

Regards, John.

In regards to the question of what agnosticism is: When in special reference to religion, an 'agnostic' is someone who claims to not know -- or that nobody can know -- whether or not a god exists, but says nothing of belief. In general, the term actually is a broad epistemological philosophy about the capacity pf knowledge about many things not just gods. Nobody can possibly argue that the term is mutually exclusive with atheist or theist as there are many agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

That is certainly a quite plausible interpretation with some clear advantages for philosophical discussion, but I am not sure it has ever been a common one. Recall what Flew himself says in the work from which you quoted:

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. 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.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.[2] 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?'

[my emphasis]

Flew himself recognizes that his intention for purposes of his argument is to present an unusual construction of the word atheist and he contrasts it with the usual meaning. As I pointed out, he based his notion on false etymology.

The Dictionary of Philosophy is a work with many contributors under Flew's overall editing. An authoritive reference work whose purpose is to serve as a dictionary is usually a matter of considerable care and meticulous review. Since the second edition was revised with corrections, its definitions of agnosticism and atheism are intended to reflect the common usage.

Agnosticism: "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."

Atheism: 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 neither true nor false (see logical positivism).

Anthony Flew, Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd revised edition 1999.

Whatever Flew may have meant by his original invention of the term negative atheism, it seems to have drifted in its usage to what I suggested. About.com gives the following definition:

Negative atheism is defined as any sort of atheism or non-theism where a person doesn't believe in the existence of any gods yet does not necessarily make the positive claim that gods definitely do not exist.

This definition of negative atheism closely parallels the broad, general definition of atheism itself as well as similar terms like implicit atheism, weak atheism, and soft atheism.

[Scott]

Yes, your quotes and I seem to be in agreement. Agnosticism: to not know whether or not a god exists (which neither precludes nor necessitates belief one way or the other). Negative atheism: to not believe that god(s) exists, i.e. to be without god. Theism: to believe that a god(s) exists (which neither precludes nor necessitates having knowledge of whether or not god exists).

You say Flew's use of negative atheist drifted, but I don't see how you can conclude from the quoted passage that since the authors of the book he edited didn't define it at all. Maybe you mean his definition of atheism but not negative atheism drifted because of the way the definition is worded in a dictionary he edited? It's a shame they didn't include negative atheism in their dictionary. Do you have any other sources regarding the name negative atheist or negative atheism? Please note, it's not necessarily the same as soft/weak/implicit atheism.

In any case, I think the list I provided in my previous post provides a good in-order breakdown of the spectrum between the strongest theism and the strongest atheism:

Gnostic Theists
Theists
Negative Atheists
Negative Implicit Atheists
Negative Explicit Atheists
Positive Atheists
Gnostic Atheists

Yes, your quotes and I seem to be in agreement.

I don't think so, but endlessly multiplying forms of atheism is of no interest, simplifying them is better. We agree no one has certain knowledge about God, so let's set aside distinctions on the basis of what is known and concentrate on what is believed. The important distinction is between lack of belief and disbelief.

In my way of thinking the difference between the two statements (1) I don't believe God exists and (2) I believe God does not exist is precisely the difference between lack of belief (1) and disbelief in (2). I think it prevents confusion to call the first non-theism and the second atheism.

You and Flew (1984) prefer the term negative atheism for what I think is much more accurately called non-theism. Why is non-theism better? Because it allows then for a position in between theism and atheism in which one neither believes or disbelieves in the proposition God exists. Most would call that position agnostic, but if we limit agnosticism to knowledge, we must find another term. The only thing that comes to mind is adogmatism, an awkward word, but it will have to do.

Then on the basis of belief alone, there are three positions for those who think the proposition God exists is a meaningful statement: theism, atheism, and adogmatism.

[Scott]

In my way of thinking the difference between the two statements (1) I don't believe God exists and (2) I believe God does not exist is precisely the difference between lack of belief (1) and disbelief in (2). I think it prevents confusion to call the first non-theism and the second atheism.

I think it creates confusion to call the second one atheism when atheism also includes the first one. It would clear up confusion to call the latter positive atheism rather than just atheism. I don't see how that can confuse anyone especially since the positive/negative distinction is unequivocally defined throughout all credible sources (and presumably most non-credible sources). If you want to refer to negative atheism as non-theism, then I see no problem with that since even though I don't see how it clears up confusion -- since the term negative atheism appears to me to be so unequivocally defined from all different sources -- I also do not see it creating any more confusion.

Incidentally, I doubt neither nontheism nor negative atheism nor any other specific categorization will ever replace 'agnosticism' or some similarly vague name because, I believe, its vagueness and near conceptual invulnerability is exactly why it is used. I certainly don't go around specifically telling people whether I am specifically a positive atheist, negative atheist or theist while at job interview, in the break room at work, on a first date or in line, paying my rent in the leasing office, or at the grocery store. If someone committed the faux paux of engaging such a subject -- do you believe in god? -- I can definitely see the reason for dodging the question like a politician by giving the most vaguely agreeable extreme-denying answer with a popular simply word. The entire point is to not be specific, elaborate or disagreeable. The same probably goes for common responses to other hot-button issues like abortion, a controversial trial or which political party one is voting for. Is it any surprise most people register independent, identify as independent but don't vote independent? If someone brings up impractical controversial politics -- "who are you voting for?" -- in an appropriate setting and most settings are inappropriate IMO then I think it makes sense to deny the extremes with a conversation stopper -- "I don't like the extremes of either party." I believe it's the very fact that agnosticism overlaps with positive atheism and theism AND that that is in between them whatever you call it is why it is a popular choice for someone to identify themselves as in regards the god question without further clarification.

***

Then on the basis of belief alone, there are three positions for those who think the proposition God exists is a meaningful statement: theism, atheism, and adogmatism.

I may not agree with the terminology, but I certainly agree with what you mean by it. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Although, at the risk of opening up another can of worms , I'm not convinced either way on the issue of meaningfulness. In other words, in regards to the god question, I'm not convinced about whether or not an igtheist would fall into the category of what you call adogmatists.

In my way of thinking the difference between the two statements (1) I don't believe God exists and (2) I believe God does not exist is precisely the difference between lack of belief (1) and disbelief in (2). I think it prevents confusion to call the first non-theism and the second atheism.

I think it creates confusion to call the second one atheism when atheism also includes the first one.

I doubt that throughout history writers have consistently used the term atheism to denote a mere lack of belief when the words scepticism and unbelief do that job nicely. Ernst Nagel in Critiques of God specifically denies atheism is mere unbelief and that children are born atheists.

The classical usage applied the word to those who did not worship the official state gods. Paul used it for those who did not worship Christ, and in modern times it has meant actual disbelief in God. The position of lack of belief was traditionally denoted by the word sceptic as in this quotation by Gladstone:

By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic from the affirmative, but who drives himself or is driven to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen or to the existence of God.

W. E. Gladstone, Contemporary Review, June 1876

Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy allows two cases 1) the belief there are no gods and 2) lack of belief in a personal God. The Oxford English Dictionary defines atheism as the theory or belief that God does not exist.

Negative atheism appears to be merely a relatively recent invention of Flew, based on a false etymology, and not yet accepted into general usage. To allow atheism to be read as unbelief introduces a confusion into older philosophical texts that need not be there while adding no clarity to present discussions. I really doubt that anyone who describes himself as an atheist means to indicate a state of unbelief and nothing more.

We've given this more than enough enough discussion and should move on to more productive topics, I think. I've found it helpful in clarifying my own views.

I meant that once you start talking about possible existence of this or that deity you cannot be serious, because if it does exist it probably exists beyond our capability of describing it with written and spoken language. Talking about logic and support for this or that ideology you talk about your personal stance on religion and beliefs in this very moment of your life, but never prove existence of deity. The whole discussion in this topic can be narrowed to two sentences: "I believe that deities exist" and "I dont believe that deities exist". The question is: why some of us believe and some not. But philosophy (language) won't answer this question.

As for squeezing out I mean that this forum, just like many other philosophy forums reminds me of my friend who writes his doctoral thesis about Tillich. He tries hard, but the major issue is that he can't get to the core of things, to define the vital problem. He writes about Tillich, thinks like Tillich and uses the vocabulary of Tillich. You guys here love to play philosophers, write lengthy posts and all, but it rarely produces something original or thought-provoking. It's running in circles. Whenever I enter philosophy forums I expect true fights, but always find a gathering of soft-spoken yawning and bored elders.

I strongly dislike philosophy, maybe that's why we won't understand each other.

EMTe: You seem to be replying to somebody but it's not clear who. But you do seem to be irritated by the general class of people that you define as phillis. If you think that the general level of conversation is uninspiring, say something inspiring! Say something original and thought provoking. If you think it's impossible to do so, I don't really see why you'd want to read the forum.

"EMTe" that is correct, it cannot be proved or disproved, language can stretch things so far but cannot penetrate the mystery of experience, as only experience can. But this must be discussed. Philosophers lack the poetry in which to communicate the things that will reach into the heart of a matter, that part of language is segregated to the "not" and not to the tooth and the chew. This is however not a poetry site and philosophy with its ethic will abound. All of the greatest philosophers were those who wished experience and nothing more, in order to learn more. Most tried and failed in this area. Experience and logic do not mix well. Experience shatters bones and glass, pain is a sharp awakening to the dreamer. But the philosopher takes it better than the poet. His mind is always low, and logic is accustomed to pain. It could be said that because of pain logic exists, as we cannot deny the existence of pain in our lives, it keeps everything in the logical state that it is. It keeps boundaries, and logic is a boundary. If logic fasted as to starve itself it would become open to madness or perhaps we could call it the reason of heart. if the poet would starve himself his logic would die first. He surrenders to madness easier than the philosopher. There is no shame in this. Either way you look at it there is only tragedy. Life simply does not apply itself to logic. It has some but not all. It breathes but it moves also. Philosophy discuses breathing but not moving. It's dynamic is viewed from another place. Go easy on the folks here, they seek answers in the best way they know how. What more could you ask of them?

-- Updated May 22nd, 2012, 12:30 pm to add the following --

Confusion is at rest most in ignorance. When it becomes peace, confusion is truly silent.

-- Updated May 22nd, 2012, 1:10 pm to add the following --

Soul is parted from reason. It knows the reason. for it's parting. It's that all the reasons are wrong.

language can stretch things so far but cannot penetrate the mystery of experience, as only experience can. But this must be discussed. Philosophers lack the poetry in which to communicate the things that will reach into the heart of a matter

Agree. If you'll read my other posts (not that many, since I registered only a while ago) this is something that pains me. I feel that many of the questions asked on this or other forums can be or are already answered by science for a long time, but most of us don't have the necessary scholarship or haven't read enough books to switch between various disciplines. I don't have this knowledge also and that's why I FEEL that most of the talks on philosophy forums, while linguistically logical, are far from the - even the vaguest - truth, because they are language-based and rarely, if ever, provide information about recent discoveries of science or neuroscience. We will probably never get to whatever is "core of things", but at least it is possible to approach it, with small steps. I FEEL that oldschool philosophying as the only means of approaching various truths and senses, nowadays, in 2012, is kinda backward.

Stay happy.

language can stretch things so far but cannot penetrate the mystery of experience, as only experience can. But this must be discussed. Philosophers lack the poetry in which to communicate the things that will reach into the heart of a matter

Agree. If you'll read my other posts (not that many, since I registered only a while ago) this is something that pains me. I feel that many of the questions asked on this or other forums can be or are already answered by science for a long time, but most of us don't have the necessary scholarship or haven't read enough books to switch between various disciplines. I don't have this knowledge also and that's why I FEEL that most of the talks on philosophy forums, while linguistically logical, are far from the - even the vaguest - truth, because they are language-based and rarely, if ever, provide information about recent discoveries of science or neuroscience. We will probably never get to whatever is "core of things", but at least it is possible to approach it, with small steps. I FEEL that oldschool philosophying as the only means of approaching various truths and senses, nowadays, in 2012, is kinda backward.

Stay happy.

Well if language is missing it certainly is not making its mark here. I can observe the almost circular route of conversation about certain subjects but it is up to you to give an example of how we can progress not just criticize our efforts. I am no academic philosopher and much of what I read is an excuse to display education rather than novel thoughts but a certain standard of education has to be maintained in a philosophical discourse or it becomes childish banter.