I thought I saw an atheist
Obsessed by that one fact
Whose sole defining feature
Was the god-belief he lacked
For causes or philosophies
He proudly did not care—
I’d tell you more about him…
But there’s really nothing there.
Rather the opposite of this verse, I should think.
Actually I’m getting a bit worried about the vilification of dictionary atheists. They are, after all, right about atheism and dictionaries. That’s not to say I don’t see consequences to the non-existence of God. In a society like ours those consequences are many. But my exploration of those consequences are mine. Many people think I am wrong, and I therefore have no more right to attach inevitabilities to atheism than do any of the atheists I criticise.
Many atheists, for example, think that rationalism is an inevitable partner of atheism. I don’t think so. One of my reasons for not thinking so is that the dictionary definition of atheism doesn’t include rationalism at all. But on this basis, I would be in the firing line for using the dictionary atheism defence. There is no room for emotional irrationality in the atheism of many anti-dictionary atheists.
That’s the problem with attacking dictionary atheists. It prepares the ground for acts of exclusion, and many such acts are unjust acts of bullying against atheists who simply don’t share the prevailing ideology on the particular atheist website in question.
Actually, one of the consequences I see of my atheism is that I reject all claims to authority, so I’m not bound to dictionary definitions anyway. So a dictionary atheist is someone who falsely claims authority anyway. Indeed, people who criticise dictionary atheists are doing the same thing. As I suppose are people who defend them. Ultimately it’s probably better just to discard the dictionary completely and just say what our opinions are. But in saying this I am rejecting objectivity, which lots of anti-dictionary atheists hold dear. More conflict, ever more conflict…
It’s true by definition that anyone who doesn’t believe in gods of any kind is an atheist no matter what else they believe in.
In my opinion, very little necessarily follows from atheism–mainly not praying (or only praying as a cultural practice) since you don’t think anyone is listening and not acting on claims of divine punishment, reward or aid since if there are no gods these threats and incentives are meaningless.
BUT I also think that a given person’s atheism is itself a product of something. And usually, at this point in history, the cause or introduction to atheism is some mixture or rationalism and empiricism..
1. The person is interested in making decisions informed by knowledge about how the universe is or most likely is given the evidence. They also want to think about reality in a coherent, organized manner.
2. Many people starting out with these goals find themselves seriously questioning common ideas about supernatural entities and phenomena. In a culture where most religions are theistic, the most important kind of supernatural belief is in the god or gods commonly worshipped. Thus the rejection of a belief in the divine is the most noticable consequence of adopting naturalism instead of supernaturalism.
3. Since the “no gods” part of consistent naturalism is the most noticeable and controversial aspect of it, “atheism” has become a kind of of shorthand for it. But it could just as easily be called simply naturalism or maybe materialism, a-supernaturalism, a-angelism, a-devilism, a-magicism, or all of these things.
4. There are few logically necessary consequences of this worldview, but a lot that are very likely consequences. For one thing, not believing in supernatural benefits (miracles, heaven, etc.), one has no reason to seek them. Not believing in supernatural threats like eternal damnation or curses, there is no reason to fear or try to avoid them.
Most people want some kind of happiness and fulfillment, and not expecting an afterlife the non-believer in supernaturalism must either try to find what they want in this world or accept disappointment. People with a healthy degree of empathy and a recognition of human interdependence have benevolent impulses toward others as well. If one is of the opinion that praying for them, or converting them to a religion would be useless, then the only way to do good to others is something that also must happen here, in the only realm we have good evidence for.
Thus most atheists think that persuing their own interests in the context of also trying to improve general conditions on earth is the best way to live. But yes, some choose defeatism or extreme individualism and they are atheists, too–but probably shouldn’t be called humanists.
Oh come on Ed, you can pray. Albeit there isn’t an external god on the other end of the telephone, but what’s wrong with communicating with the god you create in your psyche? As Kierkegaard (a christian) said, “the purpose of prayer is not to communicate with the Almighty, it is to change the nature of person praying”.
“Coherent, organized matter.” What about the absurdists – atheists the lot of them. What’s wrong with living in a universe created in your own head which is just a bunch of incoherent and badly-organized, half-baked ideas? At least that’s human. God still doesn’t need to exist in such a universe. In fact, it’s probably better that he doesn’t. Or she.
“Evidence”. Bah. The non-existence of God renders evidence ancillary to existence. There’s not much need for it. If everybody were required to produce evidence, nobody would be entitled to an opinion.
I can assure that that when atheism is used as a shorthand for naturalism or materialism it is being used incorrectly.
I don’t know what “most atheists” think. Nobody has ever done a reliable survey. I know what a small number of privileged atheism-orientated atheists with access to the internet think. But that’s not the same thing.
I agree that prayer rituals are fine for an unbeliever when used for centering, accessing the unconscious or participating in collective activities meaningful to the person. I meant prayer as an attempted communication with an external superior entity living in a spirit realm who can understand the prayer and provide help.
Absurdism is fine, especially in the arts. Disorganized thoughts are perfectly normal, too, sometimes. I guess I should have said the capacity for rational, organized thought, skill in using it, and no taboos against applying it to any subject.
The evidence needed to consider something true depends on the situation. A proposed cancer treatment requires elaborate study by many people over a long period of time. Realizing that you are late and the train has left the station can take place in seconds. And sometimes we don’t have any proven facts on a matter; just a continuum of attempted answers, some more plausible than others.
You have a point about not being able to accurately measure the opinions of “atheists” broadly defined since there would be no way identifying all people who have no belief in gods and selecting a representative sample. But it’s possible to look at the common ideas among people who publicly identify with the term.
But people can reject theism for any number of reasons, including simply not liking the concept.
An idea for an absurdist work–a world where everyone is an atheist but the majority pretend to be believers. Most of these pseudo-believers think they are alone and try very hard to convince the others (whom they assume are actual believers) that they have great faith and devotion. Those most tormented by their doubt become the greatest religious fanatics in public.
exi5tentialist @1:
See there’s one of your many problems. Criticizing people for their beliefs and actions is not an attack. It’s holding people to a standard.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
You’re mistaken. Yes, the acts of exclusion happen, but the bullying, no. I want to exclude the misogynists from the atheist movement. They won’t seem to go anywhere though, so I’ll happily keep criticizing them. You make it seem like the “prevailing ideology” shared by many progressive atheists is not a good thing. It’s a shame that you don’t think fighting against sexism, racism, or homophobia is a worthy goal. Because that’s what many of us have been doing. Those atheists you’re defending…those dictionary atheists…they complain about social justice intruding on their atheism, all while they’re advocating for the separation of church and state-which is social justice. They just don’t like the fact that feminism, for instance, is another area that social justice atheists are concerned about. They don’t want to mix that type of social justice with their atheism. Which says a lot about them. It says they’re not interested in making things better for women. As a result, they *ought* to be excluded. Same as those atheists who shit on trans people. These are people I don’t want to be around, and there’s nothing wrong with excluding them from a segment of the atheist movement. Hell, it’s not like they’ve been excluded. Every member of the Slym*pit would still be welcomed at various blogs on FtB if they weren’t so opposed to efforts to diversify the atheist movement and create a space where women, LGBT people, and PoC feel welcomed. Sadly, they *do* oppose those efforts and they contributed and continue to contribute to making people feel unwelcome. And it’s not just the Pitters. It’s also people like the racist, sexist shitspigot Sam Harris, or Dawkins. Their regressive views are offputting to many people, though sadly, not enough.
Just thought I’d pipe up briefly to agree with Tony.
Once we start advocating for making things better for atheists, we won’t get very far if we get stuck effectively assuming atheists are cisgender heterosexual White middle-class men. We exclude all the other atheists out there, thus weakening any pro-atheism advocating, if we don’t understand that there are a lot of other complex issues affecting people.
@Tony! The Queer Sloop
I do think that fighting against sexism, racism or homophobia is a worthy goal. I do it myself, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Read what I said, please don’t infer things I haven’t said and that aren’t there.
Where atheism is attached to social justice I fully support it. But where atheism develops a war-supporting bias, for example, it criticizes IS but soft-pedals on the criticism of US bombing of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s when I think this habit of cementing extraneous ideologies to atheism becomes tenuous and a reminder of narrower atheist objectives is in order.
It’s a kind of McCarthyism to invoke slymepit at anyone who expresses dissent from a blog post. I agree the slymepit website, and Harris and Dawkins, are sexist racist people and often homophobic, I agree that it’s wrong to shit on trans people, and that feminism is a good partner of atheism. I just don’t think that those progressive ideas derive from atheism, any more than bombing Syria derives from atheism, or indeed that making generalisations about islam derives from atheism.
And yet, I often find myself being primed for exclusion at FTB by bloggers and commenters here when I comment on Syria or some of the generalisations about islam that are frequently made at FTB, which makes me think that a little too much righteousness is sometimes being attached to the concept of atheism as the root of various political positions which are themselves questionable. Narrowing the definition of atheism is an essential part of deconstructing some of the political ideas that get expressed here that I don’t think are very progressive. Not all dictionary atheism is the same.
I was an atheist at the age of four (before I’d even heard the word ‘atheist’). My Sunday School teacher gave me some pretty shonky information about angels, which led me to suspect that she was pissing in my ear. Later she told me that Jesus walked on water and that convinced me that she was a bit potty in the head. Not long afterwards I was telling all the other kids that god probably didn’t exist. I was an atheist with no causes and no philosophies.
I dunno, grumpyoldfart, for a 4 year old, caring enough about the truth to tell the other kids that a teacher is bullshitting them seems pretty activist to me. If you didn’t care, why would you bother telling them, or even be annoyed in the first place?
Yes, it seems to me that grumpyoldfart had at least an implicit philosophy as a child that certain claims made sense and fit in with observable facts while others didn’t. And also the idea that this mattered enough to tell people about it, even at the risk of going against authority figures and the majority.
Consider this. PZ who started this (as best as I remember) “Why are you an atheist?” identifies himself as a feminist as well. Why can’t the same be afforded to the dictionary atheist?
Do you go around asking “Why are you a feminist?” and chastise one for just being a “dictionary feminist” if they are also not, for example, an atheist?
Why try to co-opt what atheism means, and not instead try to explore what an atheist is beyond being an atheist?
“Welcome to Dictionary Atheists Con V! Great to see so many of you here.
Now, since we met last year, has anyone discovered any new evidence in favor of God?
…No?
Okay, well then I guess that’s it for this year. See you all at Dictionary Atheist Con VI!”
Shripathi Kamath — I agree to an extent. I don’t see the need to claim that the liberal left views (which I share) held by a large number of open atheists are a direct outgrowth of atheism. I know it isn’t always that way because I had the same type of political views when I was a believer.
And I know people who are still believers and are also feminists, advocates of healthcare as a human right, anti-racist activists, etc. And there are conservative and libertarian atheists (and atheists who are liberal on most issues but hold opinions on particular subjects which alienate them from much of the liberal community).
A problem comes when an organization has the word “atheist” in its name or description. Then let’s say the majority of members want to advocate a cause other than promoting atheism or the interests of atheists as such. This leads to conflict with those who don’t want the “atheist movement” to exclude anyone who fits the basic definition.
But the irony is that the words and activities of atheists with anti-feminist, racist, homophobic (etc.) views are ALSO going to make a section of the atheist population feel unwelcome at the local atheist meeting–other atheists who are targets of the above mentioned prejudices.
I think the concept and identity of humanism( or secular humanism) is better to organize around for people who are atheists and progressives. Of course there will be disagreements about the particulars, but humanists start out with some level of consensus about what kind of future they want to work towards.
Supporters of ideologies that are atheistic but opposed to some or all major humanistic values probably have their own organizations already (for example, Freudian psychoanalysts and Soviet-style communists where such people still exist).
People whose only major interest is opposing theism can if they wish set up forums for discussing the best ways to argue against the existence of gods and complaining about religion as ends in themselves.
A lot of this rests on equivocation on the word “atheism.” Do you mean “atheism” as a philosophical position, i.e., the lack of belief in gods, or do you mean “atheism” as “the movement consisting of atheists”?
The former, the dictionary definition, is pretty useless when it comes right down to it. Saying “I am a (definition 1) atheist” tells you nothing about the person. Raelians are atheists, many Buddhists are atheists, libertarians and conservatives and liberals and all other sorts are (definition 1) atheists. This dictionary atheism can be the basis of a very limited community (as timothycarter hilariously demonstrated), but implies no activism. Nothing about “I do not believe in gods” suggests that a person should argue with the religious or form a community to help the deconverted or dismantle religious privilege or support church-state separation or promote science or even disbelieve in things like souls or the afterlife, all things that atheists and atheist organizations do without any outcry from the supposed dictionary atheists.
Atheism as a movement implies additional principles and values. Movement atheists tend to value things like skepticism, science, and secularism. Movement atheists tend to disbelieve not only in gods, but in a whole host of supernatural claims. The atheist movement is a social and political one; take a look at the activism pages of American Atheists or Atheist Alliance International or the Richard Dawkins Foundation. They do outreach, they do debates, they sue over First Amendment issues–none of those things comes out of the dictionary definition of atheism; every one of them requires the inclusion of other values and principles, like humanism, empiricism, secularism, and basic empathy. You don’t get from “I don’t believe in gods” to “We should put up a billboard” or “we need to help out this student who’s fighting against school prayer” or “we should debate creationists” without something else.
Those values and principles are shared so universally among movement atheists that we’re surprised when other self-identified atheists reject those values and principles (SE Cupp, Bill Maher). They’re so universal that, I think, the so-called “Dictionary Atheists” have never questioned whether or not they fit with the definition of atheism. Of course atheists fight for church-state separation, of course that comes out of the dictionary definition, why wouldn’t it?
It’s only when the activism creeps toward issues that they see outside the scope of what they’ve assumed is that dictionary definition that they speak up. Secular activism is okay, but what’s this feminism nonsense? That’s not related to atheism! Except it’s just as related as secularism or empiricism or skepticism or other things you’ve taken for granted at this point.
We saw the same issue happen with the skeptic movement a few years ago. “Skepticism is about questioning paranormal claims, claims that can be tested by science, not religious ones!” They were drawing an arbitrary line beyond which the methods of skepticism could not cross. Dictionary atheists are doing the same thing now, drawing a line behind which activism is okay under the banner of atheism, but beyond that line it’s all tainting and sullying the pristine purity of the atheist movement.
You can be a dictionary atheist. I’m sure many are. But you can’t have a dictionary atheist movement.
Ed says
Which (of the two, if you had to pick one) do you think will be more productive?
1. to coax such an atheist organizations into promoting feminism, denouncing racism, embracing liberal (assume ‘good’) values
or
2. to insist that they not call themselves an atheist organization because to be an atheist necessarily means that you should be promoting feminism, denouncing racism, embracing liberal (assume ‘good’) values.
I agree that such is more worthwhile.
Tom Foss says
I agree. I also don’t see why that is limiting in any way. Nor do I see anyone promoting a dictionary atheist movement. I see atheists promoting anti-religion movements, pro-environment movements, pro-feminism movements, etc. and not always overlapping.
That. Is. OK.
Yes, overlapping would be better. Why must an anti-religion movements necessarily be the other two also to be acceptable as an atheist movement?
Check the landing page for freethoughtblogs.com. On the left there is “Atheism and Skepticism” panel. On the right, “Feminis..” wait, are the authors going by dictionary definitions?
More importantly, does it matter to those denouncing dictionary atheists?
Sripathi-
Answering your question in post 15: Definitely choice # 1.
I wouldn’t presume to tell them not to call themselves atheists if that’s what they were (I.e. they aren’t theists).
In fact, I wouldn’t even say that a narrowly focussed atheist organization would be necessarily a bad thing. They could raise awareness of the lack of good evidence for belief in gods, the weakness of alleged evidence and the irrationality of arguments for theism. If done right, this could be a useful service and an interesting activity.
I’m just saying that for people who are atheists and want a movement or life stance that addresses general human concerns, atheism in itself isn’t enough to base that on.
Oddly enough, reminds me of my brother.
A serious cyclist asked him if he was a serious cyclist, and was a bit poo-pooh ish to hear that my brother merely biked to work and back every day. “Oh, so you’re not a *real* cyclist.”… My brother asked “oh, so you drive your car to some place where you get on your bike, pedal a multi-mile circuit, put your bike back on your car and drive home. Not a *real* cyclist, then…”
So… who are the *real* atheists? The ones who hold to the true definitions, or the ones who change the world every day, day by day?
Those who aren’t
goddiststheists. Duh.The only difference between the two sets you’ve invoked is the degree of activism.
I’m a dictionary atheist. I simply lack belief in any gods. That has nothing to do with how I feel about social issues–I’ve no desire to be associated with the bigoted atheists and asshole atheists. My interest in social justice doesn’t hinge on my lack of belief, nor do I look to the various atheist factions to care about issues that affect me. Even here at FTB, there are social justice issues that aren’t understood or cared enough about, such as mental illness PLUS suicide–they’re often talked about seperatly, and should anyone dare suggest that suicide should not be a treatment or solution, the response is “I choose my choice”….and the conversation goes nowhere. I’ve not found one atheist talking about how mental illness PLUS suicide disproportinally affects marginalized people and how problematic that is considering that society does often wish we would die. I know not to expect real conversation on how the mental health system further marginalizes and excludes people who need help the most. The most I’ve come across is personal stories. That’s huge for atheists, because even those stories were incredibly rare up until a few years ago, but atheism is way behind…maybe even pre 101. I don’t expect the atheists trying to reclaim/redefine the word atheist to mean “cares about social justice” to speak on this issue, so I’m looking elsewhere. Atheism, as a movement, has failed. The more I read, the more I’m convinced I don’t belong here. And that’s okay. I’ll get what I need here and there, whether by believers or nonbelievers.
I am a dictionary atheist, because I hope that should I have been a theist, I still would have cared for social justice. I hope that should I have been a theist, I still would have given blood. I hope the reason I give blood now, is simply because I care about people and that this caring I feel is just a part of me that would emerge independant of whether I am a theist or atheist.
Those who say they give blood, are feminist or whatever because of their atheism are implicitly claiming they wouldn’t give blood, be a feminist of whatever, should they for whatever reason have turned out to be a theist, I’m not sure I find that reassuring.
kellyw. @21:
axxyaan @22:
Huh. So, if a religious person asked you to donate $$$ for a shrine to the glory of God, you’d not respond in the negative on the basis of your atheism, right?
(Heh)
John Morales @23,
Fair point, but we are now down from motivating my values downto has an influence on my choice of projects I support. I also think there is a difference between not responding positive and responding negative. To make the disctinction clear. Some theïst decide to pray before a meal. I don’t pray before a meal. However I never decided not to pray. I just never decided to pray.
So when theists would ask me to donate for a shrine to the glory of God, I wouldn’t be likely to support them, but they wouldn’t be an exception. Lots of people ask me to donate and I have only a limited amount, so the project for which people ask me to donate has to engage me somehow. So I tend not to support sport clubs. Am I now somehow more than a dictionary “unathletic person” because I prefer to support cultural things like the local dance school? If so, is it possible to be a dictionary anything? If not what is the use of “dictionary” in this context?
axxyaan,
So, you don’t dispute that your atheism entails more than merely a lack of belief in at least one deity, because it also affects at least some of your choices regarding other matters.
The context is that what you believe affects your decision-making; for example, if you believe that you are an “unathletic person”, that belief (whether true or not) will perforce affect your desire for (and engagement with) athletic activities.
Obviously, every atheist is a “dictionary atheist”, but to claim that is the end of it and that one’s atheism has no implications is to be in denial.
The dictionary definition describes what it is, but not what it entails.
It’s a cop-out to say that the definition of something is all there is to that something. Your atheism has consequences — it’s not just a description of a specific belief stance.
For example: you claim to care about social justice, and as an atheist (if you are rational) you reject moral claims based on other than humanistic (i.e. human-derived) reasoning when determining your social justice aspirations.
Listen up twinkies. I’ve been an atheist for sixty years – quit telling me I’m not doing it right! All those things besides not believing in gods you say we should be doing are things we all should be doing whether or not we are atheists. And how TF do YOU know whether I’m doing them or not anyway? Your presumption is tedious and insulting.
I’m going to side with the likes of Shripathi and Ed. There are already good terms for the types of social justice issues that liberal atheists want to promote, especially secular humanism. Why try to make the term atheist mean something already defined by those other terms?
The main problem is that conservative atheists, while definitely a minority, aren’t negligible. I only spent a few minutes googling for stats, so I didn’t find exactly what I was looking for, but according to a recent Pew survey:
Granted, unaffiliated isn’t exactly the same thing as atheist, but note that about 1/5th identified as conservative. Another report on Pew’s site did break down responses to some questions all the way to atheist, not just unaffiliated, and 13% of atheists think “abortion should be illegal in all or most cases”, and 14% of atheists think “homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society”. That’s a sizeable enough minority that it can’t be ignored as a part of atheism, nor can they be dismissed with the No True Scotsman argument.
I’m all for liberal social justice issues, and I learn quite a bit and have had to readjust many of my own views based on discussions here at Free Thought Blogs, but I think it’s more proper to discuss those as secular humanist issues rather than atheist issues.
If you haven’t seen a dictionary atheist recently, they are hiding in the gender section working up a non-plausible definition that suits their sexual deviant abuse needs.
duplicitous
complicity defined
gender
John Morales @25
I don’t think it is about whether your atheism entails something. I think it is about how high you set the bar to jump inorder for you to think this entailment becomes significant or meaningful. It seems you are setting the bar so low that everything is more than dictionary whatever. I am more than dictionary bald because it entails I rarely if ever use a comb on myself. If everything is more than dictionary, then “more than dictionary” seems meaningless.
Your remarks in combination with Cuttlefish seem to suggest that having lower priorities for donating to specific religious causes would be worthwhile mentioning because entailed by my atheism. But my activism for sociale justice would not because entailed by something else.
axxyaan @29,
Well, that’s the point PZ was making by applying the derisory label of “dictionary atheist” for those who claim their atheism has no implications, in particular those who claim to be atheists on the basis of empirical rational reasoning.
:) I don’t dispute truisms lack significance until challenged.
Mmmm. I refer you to the final paragraph of my #25.