[This topic has been debated before on Afrikaans>Ateïsme en kinders. Since that thread has been dormant for some time and my quotes are mainly in English, I introduce it as a new topic. In brief, Watookal and Cyghost saw atheism as something more than just a lack of theism, whereas the rest of the forum participants disagreed, and the thread concluded that atheism is nothing more than a mere lack of theism and requires no conviction.]
1. Suppositions
Supposition I: Atheism is the lack of a belief in God or gods;
Supposition II: Atheism is the belief in the lack of God or gods.
The bone of contention is that Supposition I incorporates ignorance of God or gods. It has occasionally been postulated by various authors and others that we are born atheist, since we do not believe in God or gods at birth, based on this supposition. Some atheists also believe that this approach gives them more political power. While such a view yields a substantially larger crop of atheists, arguably even inanimate objects such as vacuum cleaners, it might leave atheists unprotected under human rights charters. Supposition II implies a conviction or belief, which limits the atheist population, but gives atheism some substance beyond merely lacking something or ignorance. The implications do, of course, have no bearing on the actual meaning, but it is appropriate to reflect thereon briefly.
A superficial glance suggests that if theism implies the belief in God or gods, then atheism implies the lack of such a belief, i.e. Supposition I. Is this correct? The roots of the word are:
a- : not or without
theos : gods
-ism : principle (belief)
hence atheism.
Two contentious issues arise: the meaning of the –ism suffix, and the compilation of the word. It has been argued that the –ism suffix does not necessarily convey a belief, and could also refer to a condition. However, the suffix must convey the same meaning in theism as in atheism, and it would be problematic to prove that the intended meaning is anything other than belief.
How the three components of the word are grouped together, affects the meaning:
a + (theos + ism) give us no-godsbelief, supporting Supposition I
(a + theos) + ism give us nogods-belief, supporting Supposition II
The word atheos already occurs in the original Greek and the –ism suffix is a later addition. Since etymology deals with the origins of a word, the latter interpretation should therefore prevail.
atheism: disbelief in the existence of a God; godlessness.
disbelieve: Refuse credence to; be sceptic; have no faith in.
refuse: Say or convey by action that one will not accept or submit to or give or grant or gratify or consent
godless: Without a god; not recognizing God; impious, wicked.
This dictionary overwhelmingly conveys the presence of a conviction, particularly clarified under the meaning of the word refuse. Even godlessness conveys the absence of a god rather than the absence of a belief. Scope for a different interpretation is contained in the phrase have no faith in, but insufficiently so to convince that the word atheism is intended to incorporate ignorance.
3.2 The South African Pocket Oxford Dictionary
(Second South African edition, 1994)
atheism: belief that there is no God.
This brief explanation leaves no scope for misinterpretation. While discussing SA dictionaries it is interesting to note that the Pharos Groot Woordeboek translates atheist (inter alia) as godversaker and godloënaar, which go beyond belief and convey an emphatic rejection.
3.3 Other Dictionaries.
In the original debate, Cyghost gave a link to this article on evilbible, which contains several more references to dictionaries, all supporting the notion that atheism entails a conviction. I am led to believe that there are dictionaries which differ from this view, but that the more authentic ones support it.
The dictionaries quoted and referred to in this section all support Supposition II.
in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings
4.3 Wikipedia
It is described as follows:
Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.[1] It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, with or without an assertion that deities do not exist.[2] A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
Whereas the first two encyclopaedias stick to Supposition II, Wikipedia gives three different definitions, the first supportive of Supposition II, the last incorporating the absence of belief (Supposition I) and the second definition involving the rejection of belief, irrespective of whether deities are believed to exist. I suspect this somewhat puzzling third category of atheism would cater for the “whatever”-cult, who don’t care whether there are deities, then live as if there are none. Whereas their lifestyle may correspond to that of convinced atheists, it is debateable if they should be classified as such.
Wikipedia also distinguishes between “implicit” atheism (essentially Supposition I) and “explicit” atheism (essentially Supposition II).
Whereas the more authoritative encyclopaedias here consider only Supposition II, Wikipedia includes Supposition I as well as a third definition of atheism.
Finally, consideration to the evolution of meaning should be considered here. “Jesus sitting on his ass” would historically have been quite an innocuous phrase, but a different meaning has evolved, irrespective of etymology, dictionaries or proper language. Is the same process under way with “atheism”?
It seems that there is substantial support for the word to obtain a broader meaning. The evidence does, however, not convince that such a broader meaning incorporating ignorance and inanimate objects, as proposed in Supposition I, has gained adequate general acceptance to be regarded as common cause. I therefore conclude that Supposition II is the correct one (for now), and that atheism is a belief, i.e.:
Atheism is the belief in the lack of God or gods.
We should be pleased with this conclusion, because equating our convictions to that of a vacuum cleaner sucks.
Thanks for an interesting and well-researched read.
I think its really very simple: one is either a theist or an atheist. There seems very little doubt about what “theist” means. So if you are not that, then your an atheist.
Otherwise, what sort of intermediate would you propose?
While I think it preposterously unlikely that God exists, I don’t like the idea of “belief” in the nonexistence of God, as this implies a kind of certainty that seems more akin to the nature of theistic belief. Claiming belief ruffles up my sceptical feathers. Yet, if I had to bet …
And as far as appliances go, I think a vacuum cleaner has very sensible theistic convictions. And I share most of them. Happily.
Surely the word ‘atheist’ is only relevant to the deity ‘Theos’. You have gone to an enormous amount of trouble to analyse the actual word, but have maybe missed the relevance of “in relation to what or whom”. For example: as a musician I may see the other inhabitants of the world as either musicians or non-musicians. This my perspective because of who I am. If a random person, say Mary, is a scientist, I would call her a non-musician but she will call herself a scientist because that’s what she relates to. Mary doesn’t ever think about music and would never refer to herself as a non-musician because it’s not her point of reference.
So, what I’m trying to say is that the word ‘atheist’ only has relevance when used by people who believe Theos exists. This does not automatically mean that atheism is the BELIEF in NO THEOS (Supposition II).
Perhaps then, the term ‘atheist’ is only relevant when used by people who are THEISTS - they may think of others as having a BELIEF that Theos doesn’t exist. But to me, and from my perspective, I go with Supposition I (and disagree with the vacuum-cleaner analogy as mumbo-jumbo made up by Christian pseudo-scientists) and say that atheism is something I DO NOT DO - it is the LACK of BELIEF in Theos. Atheism is NOT a BELIEF that Theos doesn’t exist - it’s the lack of belief in Theos.
It may be a bit obvious but I will end with the famous quote: “Calling atheism a kind of belief is like calling not-stamp-collecting a kind of hobby.”
My intention with the submission is to illustrate that theism and atheism are not a dichotomy. Neither should it be seen as a linear scale with an intermediary. Ignorance and agnosticism are examples of categories which could neither be classified as theist nor atheist.
I have no problem with substituting the word “belief” with “conviction”.
There was no deity by the name Theos. Greek society was polytheistic, believing in numerous gods (including Hermes ) and the word theos is plural, as is atheos.
The flaw with that famous quote is that we are dealing with convictions here, not hobbies. Surely it is possible to hold the conviction that no god, easter bunny ect. exists, irrespective of what you call that conviction.
My intention with the submission is to illustrate that theism and atheism are not a dichotomy. Neither should it be seen as a linear scale with an intermediary. Ignorance and agnosticism are examples of categories which could neither be classified as theist nor atheist.
“Traditional” agnosticism only applies as a class if your supposition II is assumed correct. Huxley wanted to divorce agnosticism from the certainties claimed by both “strong atheism” and theism.
But in a more modern, technical sense, the untestable nature of the God hypothesis leaves all of us - theist and atheist alike - agnostic.
“I really don’t know whether or not any supreme supernatural entity exists (nor do I much care)” = Agnosticism.
“I have no belief in the existence of any supreme supernatural entity” = Weak atheism.
“I believe that no supreme supernatural entity of any kind exists” = Strong atheism.
I thought this definitional issue had been settled yonks ago and many times over.
It’s actually much simpler than that even. It’s only people with religious convictions of their own who have a fondness for accusing atheists of “following just another faith.” They usually say this to deflect attention away from the tenuousness of their own beliefs while at the same time attempting to undermine atheism by surreptitiously putting theism and atheism on the same epistemological footing. It’s not hard to see the desperation when you substitute “belief in pink-spotted lime-green unicorns” for “belief in any supreme supernatural entity.” “Ah,” they’ll say, “but belief in god is not like belief in something silly like pink-spotted lime-green unicorns.” It’s the real tragedy of the age that they will not see that the two are exactly alike: zilch evidence and zip reason for either to exist.
Religious belief is faith in a particular premise. Atheism is not a faith. It is a conclusion that follows from observation and reflection.
What I mean is that “belief” doesn’t apply to how I think about God or whether He exists, in the same way that you wouldn’t apply the word “belief” to your conviction that the earth is spherical. It’s not a question of belief, it’s a question of knowledge. Do we believe thunder and lightning come from Zeus or from the clouds? No … we know that Zeus doesn’t cause thunder and lightning. If Zeus is included in the many Theos gods referred to under “atheist”, then Jehovah is just one more to add to the list.
So, in my case, on Richard Dawkin’s scale of 1 - 10 (believes in God - doesn’t believe in God) I am a 10. I don’t believe Zeus and Pan and Hermes (and, what was his name … oh ya, Jehovah) don’t exist - I know they don’t exist.
I find the use of the word “belief” in the same breath as my form of atheism to be way off the mark. In fact I find Supposition II quite offensive.
I quite understand your objection. The word “belief” is often used in religious context, but is not exclusive thereto. My dictionary also ascribes the meaning “acceptance as true or existing” to belief. I am quite happy to go with “conviction” or “conclusion”.
) and the word theos is plural, as is atheos.