04.18.06
Semantics tends to be a dangerous game. The longer we play, the deeper we get into the nuances of definition, and the more meaningless the discussion ultimately becomes. Eventually, we wind up mired in a muddled morass of conflicting linguistic opinions and lose sight of the actual point of contention.
That being said, the word atheism seems to require drastic clarification. Take, for example, an offending entry from dictionary.com:
1a. "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."
1b. "The doctrine that there is no God or gods."
2. "Godlessness; immorality."
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary lists a similar variation on #2 above (trading "wickedness" for "immorality"), but at least the M-W indicates that this second meaning is an archaic and nonfunctioning usage.
The dictionary.com definition presented here is, at best, woefully inadequate; at worst, it is outright libelous and offensive. Let us begin with the latter; by asserting that the definition of Atheism necessarily includes immorality, definition 2 is asserting that all atheists are immoral. This is not the case; and since the accusation of immorality undoubtedly damages one's reputation, asserting that all atheists are immoral constitutes libelous defamation of character. Definition 2 presents a bold-faced lie by accusing all atheists of being immoral.
As I've demonstrated before, it is not the atheist who is immoral, but in fact the theist. Theists believe that morality is handed down by a supernatural force external to our realm of reality; by extention, this implies that the theist requires an externally imported sense of morality in order to function as a moral being. By definition, then, theists are admiting that they are, unto themselves and without divine supervision, inherently amoral beings.
The atheist, on the other hand, takes it upon him-or-herself to devise a pragmatically functional moral code that operates within the bounds of the physical reality that we occupy. By definition, then, the atheists is in fact an intrinsically moral being whether she acted morally or immorality. The mere fact that the atheist understands that his sense of morality comes from within himself makes him the author of morality; whether he adheres to that moral code or not is, in this case, materially irrelevant.
Definition 1 from dictionary.com broadly represents the two primary branches of atheism: 1a demonstrates what is classically called the "strong" atheist stance, while 1b describes what is classically thought of as the "weak" stance. These descriptions are insufficient, however, because they denote a correlation to amounts and reliability of evidence when no such correlation exists.
In most matters, a "strong" stance is thought of as one which is supported by several pieces of reliable evidence; a "weak" stance is thought of as one lacking in reliable evidence. These conceptions, however, do not apply in the case of atheism, and are therefore misleading. In response, I use the term "positive atheism" in reference to the so-called "strong" stance, and "skeptical atheism" in place of the so-called "weak" stance.
I subscribe to the skeptical brand of atheism rather than the positive brand, but, as usual, the dictionary.com falls severely short. Definition 1a claims that atheism is a "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods," describing the skeptical stance. True skeptical atheism, however, is not concerned with disbelief; it is concerned with the substantiation of claims, both natural and supernatural, with reliable evidence.
If a claim cannot be substantiated with reliable evidence, it cannot be accepted as being pragmatically meaningful. Since no claims about the existence of any supernatural entities have been substantiated with reliable evidence, the skeptical atheist will not accept them as being in any way meaningful or true. So in truth, skeptical atheism is not a "disbelief in...gods," but rather a refusal to accept unsubstantiated claims about the existence of gods.
Definition 1b claims that atheism is "the doctrine that there is no God or gods," describing the positive stance. Positive atheism does, in fact, assert that no gods exist, but it does so more often for philosophical reasons than evidenciary ones; positive atheism points out, for instance, that omnipotence is a logically self-contradictory attribute, that the notions of omniscience and omnipotence contradict one-another, and that omnibenelovence is contradicted by existence of evil. Positive atheists hold that these logical proofs establish that no gods exist because all known god-concepts are illogical, and thus incompatable with our logical reality.
Another subset of positive atheism makes the claim that no gods exist based on the profound lack of reliable evidence supporting the assertion that any gods do exist. This type of positive atheism views the lack of supporting evidence for the truth of god-claim as damning circumstantial evidence supporting the falseness of the god-claim. Since "belief" is the acceptance of a claim that cannot be substantiated through reliable evidence, then it might in this case be accurate to say that this brand of positive atheist "believes that no gods exist," only because this positive atheist "accepts the claim that no gods exist despite a lack of reliable conclusive evidence that no gods exist."
The difference between skeptical atheism and positive atheism, then, is the simple leap from "I do accept any supernatural claims because none are supported by reliable evidence" to "I assert that no gods exist because there is no reliable evidence to support the claims that any do."
Of course, dictionary.com also leaves out atheistic attributes such as the rejection of arbitrary rules based on beliefs in unsubstantiated supernatural entities, and the rejection of special treatment based on unsubstantiated religious belief. Further, it seems strange in 1b that the religious language of "doctrines" is being applied to a definition of atheism. This seems dangerously similar to the common theistic attempt to claim that atheism is simply another religion, when in fact atheism is the conscious rejection of all religions. Or, to quote the brilliant adage, "if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."
Let us now clear the air and assert a clear definition of atheism. Succinctly, it is "the rejection of any claim that cannot be supported with repeatable, observable evidence." Since the supernatural cannot be supported with repeatable, observable evidence, atheists reject the claim that anything supernatural exists; some go further by claiming that nothing supernatural can exist, but at its core, that assertion is based in a fundamental rejection of unverifiable claims.
Back