is the atheist stance too strong in some cases?

[AlP]

Hi. I just joined this forum and said hello in another post. I'm afraid this is a little long but it's been on my mind a lot lately and maybe some of you thoughtful people can help me out. Also, apologies for my sloppy language. I'm working on it.

I currently call myself an atheist but I am considering taking a weaker nontheistic stance in some cases. This will seem like a triviality to some folks I'm sure but I will explain my thoughts.

It seems to me that a statement declaring the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods must be made with respect to a specific meaning for god. The "meaning" may not actually be meaningful at all in the semantic sense, in which case I think the statement does not have a truth value. If it passes that first hurdle, then the statement is either true or false. I'm no mathematician so if anyone can help me out with my logic here, please do! Also, there's a name for the world view of someone who does not think there are gods but does not declare that there are zero gods because they think that the description of the gods is semantically meaningless. I forget the name but it's only a wikipedia search away!

By way of example, I will give three descriptions of god which I think cover the three categories: false, true(!) and lacking truth value.

False example: I will borrow the flying spaghetti monster (whom I will call the FSM) for this. The FSM was invented in protest to the decision of the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design. I haven't read the "gospel" of the FSM but I'm going to assume for the purpose of argument that it is semantically meaningful (though it may not be). Since the FSM was made up, probability tells us that a statement that the flying spaghetti monster exists is almost certainly false.

"True" example: I've never met someone who worships the sun (at least not in the religious sense!) but wikipedia says this practice has occurred throughout history. To me, an interesting thing about a religion like this is that the thing the worshiper calls "god" really does exist. It's scientific fact (in the sense that a statement that the sun exists is testable, falsifiable and we have a great deal of supporting evidence for the existence of the sun). Now I'm not saying that, because the sun exists, sun worship is a rational thing to do. It's irrational for a different reason: because there is no reason to worship the sun!

So this is the first part of my puzzle. When someone says "my god exists", they mean something specific when they say "god". They are implying something. What they are saying is equivalent to, for example, "the FSM exists", which is false, or "the sun exists", which is true.

It's different for me as an atheist though because I think there are no gods. I cannot imply one particular meaning for god when I make a statement about there being no gods. When I, as an atheist, say "there are no gods", what do I mean by god? Unless I specify otherwise, I think a reasonable person might argue that, having implied no particular description for the "gods" in question, I am referring to all gods, perhaps even the gods of all religions throughout human history. So I am really saying "the FSM does not exist and the sun does not exist and Allah does not exist and Titan does not exist and ... etc". Now since this is an atheist group, we'll all most likely agree that most of those "gods" don't exist (my exception is the sun). And of those that do technically exist, they aren't actually "gods". But all it takes is for one and only one of those things identified as "god" to exist (like the sun) and my whole statement becomes false.

This is only a problem if I make a statement like this without limiting what I mean by "god". For example, if someone asks me if I believe in god and I ask them what they mean by god and they reply "the flying spaghetti monster", then I think the statements "there is no flying spaghetti monster" and "your god does not exist" are true.

But often I am asked to state my stance on the existence of gods in a universal way, i.e. without any specific meaning for what "gods" are. I think on those occasions, atheism might be too strong a stance, because in the universal sense at least, it is false (because, for example, the sun exists and some people mean "sun" when they say "god"). On these occasions, I think a weaker stance like nontheism might be appropriate and that's what I am considering doing for myself. I will be able to say generally, "I am a nontheist". But in cases where I want to be more specific I can say "with respect to the flying spaghetti monster,
I am an atheist".

But it gets worse! There are also ways of describing god which are not even meaningful. I'll invent a new "god" for the purpose of argument: "god is everywhere but has no physical form". I think this is meaningless. It's a paradox of sorts. It's worse than false in a sense because it doesn't have truth value.

This further confounds the problem for me when I am implicitly implying a universal description for god because now it includes all gods that cannot be described meaningfully. All it takes is a single semantically meaningless description of god and my statement also becomes semantically meaningless by including that one semantically meaningless element.

So again, I should be careful when I claim to be an atheist and make sure I am not unintentionally making a statement that is false or, arguably worse, semantically meaningless. I could call myself something like a nontheist if I am making a universal statement. But I can still call myself an atheist if I am working with a specific description of "god" that is both semantically meaningful and false.

But I don't like taking a weaker stance when it comes to stating how many gods I think there are. I have a good sense of what I mean when I say I am an atheist and I don't want to take a weaker stance just because god believers are all over the place when it comes to describing their gods! I think I need to have a clear definition of exactly what "god" means when I say I think there are none. Then I can reply "in a sense I am an athiest". And if they ask me in what sense, I can tell them exactly what I don't think exists. Is there any agreement among the atheist population over what exactly we don't think exists? Maybe just the supernatural?

[VanReal]

Interesting post.  I think in the long run you have to consider your view and state it how it makes you most comfortable and how you think your thoughts are getting properly interperated.  I don't think there is a consensus or there wouldn't be so many "names" for what people consider themselves.  I myself don't spend that much time thinking about it, and don't really consider myself, or my view, by any label.  It is only in comparison when I think about it, like when someone mentions prayer or church or God, then I see the dramatic difference in how I think and feel from those people.  Otherwise I just float around not relying on any grand design or divine intervention because I don't consider them as valid or possible.

[AlP]

For anyone who is interested, I resolved this issue in the following way. When stating I am an atheist, if I feel there might be any confusion, I can qualify it in the following way:

"I think there are no deities, where a deity is a postulated supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, sacred, held to high regard and respected by human beings"

The qualification as to what I mean when I say "deity" is based on the wikipedia definition of "deity". I like this because now I am not implicitly relying on a definition of "deity" or "god" provided by a believer, which could undermine my position by being, in a sense, true (e.g. the sun exists and some people call the sun "god") or semantically meaningless (which could render my statement semantically meaningless also).

I think it is important that atheists should not allow believers to decide what they do not believe in. If we cannot provide our own definition of "deity" or "god", we are in danger of implicitly relying on a religious definition. I'm not suggesting an official atheist definition of what we don't believe in. Such a thing could never be anyway!

If you were asked to define the "deities" or "gods" you think do not exist, how would you do so?

[Recusant]

I appreciate your efforts toward semantic rigor, and have no argument with your definition of deity. I am not a semanticist, though, and if I were ever to encounter one who happened to be interested in arguing the proposition of the existence of gods from the positive side, I'm sure they could tear apart any statement I would make like a hawk shreds a pigeon. They are welcome to do so; it does not make their faith any more sound or profound than my lack thereof.  In fact I am willing to let believers define their gods in any way that pleases them.  When they have done so, I still won't believe in whatever they come up with.

 It's been clear to me for a long time that we are a species of very intelligent primates who love to tell each other stories.  When those stories can be tested and confirmed in the real world, as we understand it, then they are accepted as 'true.'  Until then, they occupy the vast realm of fiction.  Also, it's obvious that our understanding of reality has grown, over thousands of years, and thus many things regarded as true in the past have slipped into the fiction side. I think that gods of any kind belong there.

 If pressed to define what gods I don't believe in ( ) I guess I would say something along the lines of "Any and all things, persons or entities invented or chosen by  human beings to be worthy of worship as divine."  Not too different from the one you came up with, if perhaps less semantically exact.  Just because a thing (in your example, the sun) undeniably exists, does not mean that divine attributes assigned to it by believers in the sun-god are as real as the thing itself, except, of course, in their minds. So I don't see any stumbling block there.  Maybe I'm just being obtuse?   Anyway, I enjoyed your posts on the subject.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think Asimov describes the atheist stance best (certainly for me):

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it ... I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." Isaac Asimov

I don't believe there is no god, I cannot know one way or the other but given that so many claims are made that it does and that all such claims, when closely examined are found to be lacking or based on some kind of twisted interpretation of or even fabricated evidence I strongly suspect there is not.

With specific reference to your post it is easy to simply say I reject all claims to deity until someone provides some validatable evidence to support one and that is exactly where I stand

So, in essence, I am technically an agnostic but philosophically an atheist (a very, very strong one).

Kyu

[Mika]

I have a good sense of what I mean when I say I am an atheist and I don't want to take a weaker stance just because god believers are all over the place when it comes to describing their gods! I think I need to have a clear definition of exactly what "god" means when I say I think there are none. Then I can reply "in a sense I am an athiest". And if they ask me in what sense, I can tell them exactly what I don't think exists. Is there any agreement among the atheist population over what exactly we don't think exists? Maybe just the supernatural?

I don't think you even really need to go through all those steps you did in your post.

Hardcore atheism is really just the same as hardcore christianity. Both claim to know it all. Asserting that God does not exist requires you to be able to prove an untestable negative hypothesis, so good luck on that one. Militant atheism fails a bit as well, since the emphasis on reason and intellect is overshadowed by zealous ambition to supplant traditional christian thinking and values, which is not necessarily bad, but easily led astray.

I think your best bet is to just say that you are not religious, and let the ambiguity of the statement carry its own meaning to whoever is listening. Surely, if you are a person of science, you would be willing to rethink your atheist status if evidence suggested otherwise. But for now, you might as well just ignore empty claims until evidence entices you otherwise. There's a subtle and eloquent difference between simply dismissing an empty claim, versus beating the death out of it because you can. With the growing discomfort and disagreement with major religions in general, it has been my experience that the "not religious" line is accepted very well, and does not carry the negative stigma that the word "atheist" conveys. It is also a huge umbrella term that dismisses most everything else.

[AlP]

Oh please don't imply I claim to know it all. It hurts :banna: Actually it might depend on whether we're counting atoms or going by mass... Help! Is there a scientist in the room? What am I made of (mostly)?

You all have a splendid evening.

[Moigle]

It is claimed that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

But evil exists

- If God doesn't know about evil he is not omniscient.
- If God knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.
- If God knows about evil and he can stop it but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.

QED: God does not exist.

Apologists have come of with dozens of explanations for this "problem of evil" (as it is known) but all of them have been refuted and the conclusion holds good: God does not exist.

[maestroanth]

F

[Hitsumei]

It is claimed that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

But evil exists

- If God doesn't know about evil he is not omniscient.
- If God knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.
- If God knows about evil and he can stop it but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.

QED: God does not exist.

Apologists have come of with dozens of explanations for this "problem of evil" (as it is known) but all of them have been refuted and the conclusion holds good: God does not exist.

This assumes two major things, the arguer gets to define absolute, and objective good and evil, and decide what kind of behavior qualifies as "omnibenevolent", and that a god's ultimate goal is the maximum pleasure and happiness of the human species.

The first assumption is simply absurd, and relies on a tautology, and the second assumption is simply not agreed upon by most theists, so is a straw man.  

All the argument from evil does is formulate a conception of god, and a conception of good and evil to be mutually exclusive from each other, and then claim that they have disproved any possibility of any god, across the board.

[liveyoungdiefast]

My atheism is the rejection of all consuming gods that judge humans and act like humans, be that for Christians or Jews or Muslims or any of their gods. I'm much more open minded and agnostic towards metaphysical beings and metaphysical universal forces, just not absolutely omnipotent or omniscient, I think.

[Kodanshi]

My atheism is the rejection of all consuming gods that judge humans and act like humans, be that for Christians or Jews or Muslims or any of their gods. I'm much more open minded and agnostic towards metaphysical beings and metaphysical universal forces, just not absolutely omnipotent or omniscient, I think.

Pretty much this. I consider myself a strong atheist when it comes to monotheistic abrahamic gods as depicted in the Tanakh, New Testament and Qur’ân. I can feel agnostic towards some sort of uninvolved creator of sorts, but I wouldn’t imbue it with the qualities we usually give god: sentience, getting involved in human affairs, prophetic revelations, and suchlike.

[maestroanth]

F

[bertrandrusselisdead]

I'm interested in trying to understand a little of how atheists and Christians can communicate. I think one of the many problems with the term atheist is that it is a denial of "God", but "God" has so many meanings which one are you denying? This I think is your original point, should you try to think of a better way to describe your view of life?

I would make two observations.

1. Some people look at things from the first-person: they are egotistical and are only interested in themselves. These are one-dimensional people. Some people look at things from the other person's point of view, they think of others, they are ethical. These are two-dimensional people. The two-dimensional people can't prove that one-dimensional people are wrong, that is just the way they view the world, it is their choice. Some people look at things spiritually, they look at things from a spiritual perspective. They are three-dimensional people. They can't prove the one- and two-dimensional people wrong, they aren't wrong, they just lack a dimension. In practise people are all three: sometimes they are selfish and act egotistically, sometimes they are ethical and think of others, sometimes they go beyond even that and operate from a spiritual perspective. Different people will have different proportions of these dimensions in their lives. Perhaps you need a balance. Like this, only those people how never think or operate in three dimensions ever could possibly call themselves atheists.

What do I mean by spiritual? I can think of three themes: radical forgiveness (being able to forgive others for hurts done to you or your family), prayer and visualisation (including experiences of God and the infinite), grace and joy (experiencing life as a gift, the delight of existence). I'm sure there are others. This is just a set of radically different perspectives and ways of being associated with spiritual practises and experiences.

2. Where does man end? Let's accept that for most religious people, the experience(s) comes first, and then they try to make sense of these experiences that are nothing like experiences of the self or the other. The language they then develop and use is religious language. In fact perhaps it is cultural and learned as well. Perhaps "atheists" could learn the experience through learning the language. Perhaps atheists already have these experiences but don't have the language so they don't organise and structure the experience, and don't value it as leading to something significant and important.

You know of course that the early Christians were called atheists don't you.

[AlP]

I'm interested in trying to understand a little of how atheists and Christians can communicate. I think one of the many problems with the term atheist is that it is a denial of "God", but "God" has so many meanings which one are you denying? This I think is your original point, should you try to think of a better way to describe your view of life?

Yes that was my point. I've learned a lot since posting this and it's not something that troubles me anymore. You took some time to write your post though so I will take a little time to reply.

Some people look at things from the first-person: they are egotistical and are only interested in themselves. These are one-dimensional people

I agree that there are people who are egotistical. I personally would not use the phrase "one-dimensional". I have a background in mathematics and that phrase means something different to me.

Some people look at things from the other person's point of view, they think of others, they are ethical.

I think most people think of things in terms of others' points of view. That is important for ethical concepts. Thinking in terms of other people does not necessarily lead to "ethical" behavior though. They might be a torturer.

The two-dimensional people can't prove that one-dimensional people are wrong, that is just the way they view the world, it is their choice.

The "two dimensional person" you refer to is a moral relativist? Some people who think from another's point of view are moral absolutists though. Some Christians for example. Are they "two dimensional"?

Some people look at things spiritually, they look at things from a spiritual perspective. They are three-dimensional people. They can't prove the one- and two-dimensional people wrong, they aren't wrong, they just lack a dimension. In practise people are all three: sometimes they are selfish and act egotistically, sometimes they are ethical and think of others, sometimes they go beyond even that and operate from a spiritual perspective. Different people will have different proportions of these dimensions in their lives. Perhaps you need a balance. Like this, only those people how never think or operate in three dimensions ever could possibly call themselves atheists.

Damn it I wish I was "three dimensional" now. The way you've phrased it, it seems that being spiritual is better than not being spiritual because three is a bigger number than two. Brilliant!

What do I mean by spiritual? I can think of three themes: radical forgiveness (being able to forgive others for hurts done to you or your family), prayer and visualisation (including experiences of God and the infinite), grace and joy (experiencing life as a gift, the delight of existence). I'm sure there are others. This is just a set of radically different perspectives and ways of being associated with spiritual practises and experiences.

I have no idea what spirituality is.

Where does man end? Let's accept that for most religious people, the experience(s) comes first, and then they try to make sense of these experiences that are nothing like experiences of the self or the other. The language they then develop and use is religious language. In fact perhaps it is cultural and learned as well. Perhaps "atheists" could learn the experience through learning the language. Perhaps atheists already have these experiences but don't have the language so they don't organise and structure the experience, and don't value it as leading to something significant and important.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean.