Playing Around With Words... (Part 2)

[jamesatracy]

In a previous thread I linked to a news report in which a University professor in Canada used the term “agtheist,” which seems to be a combination of agnostic and atheist, to describe himself. Now that I think about it (and as someone else has suggested to me), he probably should have chosen “agatheist,” because “agtheist” could be confused as a combination of agnostic and theist. Nevertheless, I think that a proliferation of new terms such as these are undesirable because they only add to the confusion.

Inventing new terms is not the only way to play around with words, however. Another way is shifting or expanding the meaning of old terms. As the blogger behind Atheist Revolution has recently pointed out, the folks over at American Atheists seemed to have done just that in their own definition of atheism:

Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

According to this definition, atheism is not just no belief in a god or gods, it is an entire belief system or doctrine! This is hogwash. Atheism is none of these things. While it may be true that many, if not most, atheists subscribe to the doctrines listed in this definition - I certainly do - that doesn’t change the fact that none of these necessarily follow from the simple meaning of atheism - no belief in a god or gods. After all, one could not believe in gods and yet still believe in other supernatural entities or otherwise non-natural phenomena.

Atheist Revolution, in the post I linked to, suggests making the distinction between Atheism with a capital ‘A’, which refers to this broad doctrine as defined by American Atheists, and atheism with a lower-case ‘a’ to refer to the simple definition of no belief in a god or gods. I just think this is even more confusing and unnecessary than making up new terms. What would be the difference between Theist and theist? Agnostic and agnostic? Christianity and christianity?

Besides, there is already a few terms that basically encompass the “doctrine” as defined above by American Atheists:

Metaphysical/Philosophical/Ontological Naturalism - The doctrine that the natural world is all that exists or that there is no supernatural.

…as opposed to…

Methodological Naturalism - The assumption or adoption of metaphysical naturalism within the context of scientific investigation. A methodological naturalist may be agnostic about or may even believe in supernatural forces, but he or she adopts the position that science can only work when it seeks out natural explanations for natural causes.

It seems reasonable to concede that not all atheists should or do fall into just one of these two positions. Therefore, I do not see the advantage of dragging a particular kind of naturalism and all of the baggage that comes along with it into the meaning of what an atheist is. Yes, I consider myself a metaphysical naturalist (or metaphysical materialist). But I don’t define my atheism in particular by it.

And for Earth’s sake (because this atheist doesn’t believe in Heaven), how do you expect to distinguish between Atheism and atheism when simply talking with somebody?

[Will]

Atheism is a doctrine

Ouch, that's all sorts of wrong. Oh so totally and completely wrong that I want to write letter and sign petitions against this. Atheism is not a doctrine. It's a term which describes what one is not, namely a theist. There is no race for gentile and there is no doctrine for atheism. There are doctrines for organizations or groups which are atheist, like secular humanism, but not for atheism itself.

that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units.

The label that most closely resembles this philosophy would probably be scientism.

[jamesatracy]

Willravel,

I'm glad you agree that making a simple concept like atheism into a doctrine is not the way to go. I have heard the word "scientism" before, and I suppose it's useful.