The Merseyside Skeptics Society discusses the latest Atheist Bus Campaign which set me wondering. I'm not quite sure whether I agree (or disagree) with Mike, because I'm confused over what he's actually saying, but let's take his lead and use some Venn diagrams to explore the topic, immediately going somewhat nuclear:
You see, I think if you apply Mike's Venn definition of 'Atheist', it makes the opposite point to the one he's trying to make (or maybe the same point, as I said, I'm confused!). To me, the common usage of 'Atheist' is someone who actively acknowledges that they've thought about it, looked at the evidence, and on balance, think that this god bloke doesn't exist, and, by extension, everyone who does think he exists is rather a fool. Mike says "
An atheist is someone who does not accept theism", but I think that means "Actively doesn't accept theism", rather than his preference of "Isn't a confirmed theist".
Now, that's more like it. Now I can see that the
natural state, like the newborn child, is not to have tried pasta, and therefore not really to have an opinion on it. There are also two other states: to have accepted pasta into your life, or to have rejected it, for whatever reason (carbs are evil, can't take the gluten, etc). You could of course have tried pasta as a child, perhaps given it before you knew what it was, thought nothing of it for years, but then become increasingly disillusioned with it's many varied but basically identical forms, and then gone straight to the anti-pasta group, never to return. Equally, it is possible that, perhaps on his death-bed, someone who formally rejected pasta, decides that they've nothing to loose in hedging their bets, perhaps weakening under the pressure of the somewhat stressful experience of dying, and try a some fusilli.
In any case, I think the point is, in common usage, Atheist, and Agnostic are
active terms, not passive ones, and therefore calling a child an Atheist is as incorrect as calling them a Catholic.
And I might even be right considering the dictionary definition, one dictionary (ok, the one that comes with my Mac), says:
atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|nounthe theory or belief that God does not exist.DERIVATIVESatheist |ˈeɪθi1st| nounatheistic |ˌāθēˈistik| |ˈˈeɪθiˈɪstɪk| |-ˈɪstɪk| adjectiveatheistical |-ˈistikəl| |ˈˈeɪθiˈɪst1kəl| |-ˈɪstɪk(ə)l| adjectiveORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’
So it is the
theory or
belief that god does not exist, not the absence of theory or belief.
So, in my opinion, the diagram Mike, and perhaps the bus, need is this:
2 comments:
When consulting a dictionary wrt definitions, you need to be wary of the world-view of the author(s) of that dictionary.
In my youth, when consulting a dictionary you would have read "Atheist: Someone who denies the existence of God"
Such bias couldn't be found in the definition of other words "Communist: Someone who denies the efficacy of Capitalism"
So, despite the dictionary definition you quoted (and the bias it entails) the definition of atheism quite simply is: Not theist.
Wikipedia: Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]
All biases catered for there!
For me, common usage is often the most important definition, since English is a living language. This is a distinct disadvantage to the printed word of course: take for example all those books which use "gay" in it's pre mid-20th century sense. Dictionaries are no exception.
Perhaps the definition is actively changing given the amount of discourse around the subject at the moment?
Certainly when I tell someone that I'm an Atheist, I'm not just saying that I'm 'not a theist', I'm also saying that 'I dispute the existence of deities', and no I'm not interested in reading your leaflet!
Post a Comment