Also, of note, it seems they didn't tackle the inherent issue of defining the negation of a proposition as a proposition (as found in the "rock is an atheist by lack of belief in God" example) where a rock is vegan as it's technically not meat. Neither here nor there but it's a natural corollary that falls out from it. This may still be edited later but it's clearly an important distinction to be made and that natural corollary will fall out from it.

What's a lack of belief?

Either God exists xor God doesn't exist.

There are just two options and we know what theists chose.

Atheism claims it didn't choose either of them which they declare as a lack of belief.

Tabula rasa interpretation

1. Blank page (lack of belief?)
2. Written on page, God exists (theism)
3. Written on page, God doesn't exist (atheism)

Can we go from 3 and/or 2 back to 1. Can we wipe the slate clean? Sounds very Zen to me.

Once upon a time, there was a wise Zen master. People traveled from far away to seek his help. In return, he would teach them and show them the way to enlightenment.

On this particular day, a scholar came to visit the master for advice. “I have come to ask you to teach me about Zen,” the scholar said.

Soon, it became obvious that the scholar was full of his own opinions and knowledge. He interrupted the master repeatedly with his own stories and failed to listen to what the master had to say. The master calmly suggested that they should have tea.

So the master poured his guest a cup. The cup was filled, yet he kept pouring until the cup overflowed onto the table, onto the floor, and finally onto the scholar’s robes. The scholar cried “Stop! The cup is full already. Can’t you see?”

“Exactly,” the Zen master replied with a smile. “You are like this cup — so full of ideas that nothing more will fit in. Come back to me with an empty cup.”

Empty your cup!

Mushin no shin (the mind without mind).

Take a PC, uninstall all apps. Erase its memory, Uninstall its OS. What are we left with?

The basic idea - uninstall your mind from your brain! :grin:

Defining “atheism” as naturalism has the awkward implication that some philosophers are both theists and atheists. This is because some philosophers (e.g., Ellis 2014) deny that God is supernatural and affirm both naturalism and theism.

It is fine to propose that God is natural, but naturalism is also about the rejection of the supernatural. The supernatural is essentially unproven magic. If God is natural, then God should be able to be found quite easily in nature with evidence. If God is natural and found with evidence, then the definition of atheism would change. You can't make God natural however, if God is super natural.

Defining “atheism” as the state of lacking belief in God faces similar problems. First, while this definition seems short and simple, which is virtuous, it needs to be expanded to avoid the issue of babies, cats, and rocks counting as atheists by virtue of lacking belief in God.

A silly problem. Ignorance of the definition of God does not make you an atheist. It is when you hear the definition, and are not provided adequate proof that it exists that you are an atheist. Think of it like the belief in a unicorn.

This additional problem arises because one can lack belief in God while at the same time having other pro-attitudes towards theism. For example, some people who lack the belief that God exists may nevertheless feel some inclination to believe that God exists...While such people should not be labeled theists, it is counterintuitive in the extreme to call them atheists.

This is also silly. I don't believe in a unicorn, but I sure wish one existed. That doesn't mean I don't believe in a unicorn. Atheism is about the lack of evidence, and has nothing to do with one's desire that there should be evidence. You can have atheists that want there to be a God, and atheists that don't want there to be a God. Nothing counter intuitive about it at all.

One problem with defining “atheism” as a psychological state is that philosophers do not define “theism” as a psychological state, nor should they.

Who's describing atheism as a psychological state? I think this person misunderstands what atheism is. Its not an anger or emotion towards belief in God. It is NOT this. It is that a person does not find adequate evidence for a God's existence. Their emotional or psychological state has nothing to do with it.

This means, first, defining “atheism” as a proposition or position so that it can be true or false and can be the conclusion of an argument and, second, defining “atheist” as someone who believes that proposition.

It can be true or false already. Every belief has a reason behind it, and that can be correct, or incorrect. An atheists doesn't believe in a God because there is no evidence. Can they be wrong? Yes, if there is evidence. Is it up to the atheist to provide a lack of evidence? No, how can an atheist provide nothing? It is up to a person who asserts the existence of something to provide evidence that holds up against legitimate criticism.

Think about a person who believes in a unicorn. Do I have to provide evidence to someone that unicorn's don't exist? No. A believer in a unicorn must provide evidence they exist, and that evidence must stand under criticism.

This seems to be an attempt by a theist to justify the fact they have no evidence for a God that stands under scrutiny. Its just like a person frustrated that they can't get others to believe in a unicorn, and try to get them to "prove" that a unicorn doesn't exist. People who have evidence don't need to try to pull this. Either that, or the author is confusing an atheist with an "anti-theist", or someone who is against people believing in God. Either way, this seems like a poorly thought out article.

It's just re-establishing the nature of the proposition. A psychological state is just saying "one believes God exists" etc. There's no truth aptness because it's not a proposition. A similar non-proposition is simply yelling "ouch!".
It says people can define any word as they want but not making atheism propositional is of little use in philosophy.

A psychological state is just saying "one believes God exists" etc. There's no truth aptness because it's not a proposition. A similar non-proposition is simply yelling "ouch!". — Shwah

Those aren't equivalent at all. What you're trying to state is non-belief in a God is a feeling. Atheism is not a feeling, period. I don't believe in a unicorn. I don't believe planet Zort is going to bomb planet Zeena. My emotions have nothing to do with it.

"Ouch" is the expression of the emotion of pain. There is no analysis as to the existence of pain, it is an expression of a feeling.

What you may be doing is confusing the word atheist with anti-theist. An anti-theist is someone who is against someone believing in a God. This may be more of a psychological state, or at least involves emotions.

For example, I am an atheist, but pro-theist. I do not hold contempt for those who believe in a God, and in fact, find it a postive for many people. I simply don't believe in a God because there is no evidence. There's nothing emotional or "psychological" about it.

If I'm confusing it then so is academic atheism.
A "belief" in anything is taken as granted and unanalyzable (how would anyone check?). The contents of the belief can be propositional.

A "belief" in anything is taken as granted and unanalyzable (how would anyone check?). The contents of the belief can be propositional. — Shwah

I'm not sure where you got the idea that a belief cannot be analyzed. If you believe something, you have a reason for it. The question you have to ask yourself is, "Is everything I do a belief, or are there some things I can choose not to believe?"

If everything you do is a belief, it seems a bit of a worthless word at that point. Typically belief means the affirmation of something's existence. "I believe in life, love, and the pursuit of happiness" for example. To not believe in something, is to state that it does not exist. How do you prove something doesn't exist? You don't "prove" in the technical sense of the word, though in general language, I'm sure we use the word that way.

To "prove" something, you must provide evidence for it. Prove to me right now that a unicorn does not exist. You can't do it, because if it doesn't exist, there's no evidence for it. The "proof" in the colloquial sense is that there is no evidence. How do I show you that evidence does not exist? By simply noting no evidence exists.

That is why we say theists have the "burden of proof". The burden that all must bear when they try to prove something is provide evidence. If you cannot, then it is assumed whatever you are trying to prove does not exist.

Does that make sense? And by the way, I'm quite sure some atheists don't quite understand what burden of proof is either, and may just spout off an out of context quote somewhere without actually thinking about it. Being an atheist doesn't make you intellectually or morally superior. It just means they don't see the any evidence for a God's existence.

I would say everything you do is a belief and that everything you assert requires knowledge so I would say any epistemological category is derivative of the ontological proposition (the nature or conception of God dictates the epistemological requirement one needs to know him and one's epistemological capability then is automatically categorized based on the requirement outputting belief/non-belief).

In any case, a corollary of that is that there's no passivity on either side of a position (i.e. one needs to establish evidence criteria in order to accept evidence and those can then be questioned (e.g. one can say "I lost my car keys therefore God does not exist" is certainly valid and you can say because you lost your car keys then no evidence exists that God exists, which is still valid and on a continuum is what the issue is in atheist arguments)).

It would just need a definition of "proper scrutiny". It's hard to have a conversation without any evidential standards for either side and would have one side throwing a huge net and the other side just passively rejecting all the positions which is hardly how any conversation in academia or anything should operate. The SEP defines it this way because the article's author says it facilitates philosophical discussion better.

I wanted to add to the car key point, that implication logic only holds based on what the succeedent's truth value is.
A > B
T T T
T F F
F T T
F T F

So it still requires input from the user to say whether A implies God's existence. If you reject it outright then there's a justifiable reason to ask why and saying "not enough evidence" becomes a non-starter in any philosophical discussion.

I would say everything you do is a belief and that everything you assert requires knowledge — Shwah

Ok, lets just go with this then. I actually don't mind, as words mean different things to people. Lets say everything we do is a belief, and we need a reason behind it. It doesn't change anything. If I don't believe in a God, then the reason is there is no evidence for it. Its that simple.

Theists still have "the burden of proof", because lack of evidence, is simply lack of proof. Word it however you want, the outcome remains the same.

so I would say any epistemological category is derivative of the ontological proposition (the nature or conception of God dictates the epistemological requirement one needs to know him and one's epistemological capability then is automatically categorized based on the requirement outputting belief/non-belief). — Shwah

This is a mess of words with very unclear meaning. You can communicate everything you need without a mess of words. Be honest. Be clear.

In any case, a corollary of that is that there's no passivity on either side of a position (i.e. one needs to establish evidence criteria in order to accept evidence and those can then be questioned — Shwah

Sure, if I defined belief as you did above, then the atheist must provide a reason. The reason is there is no evidence of God. If you believe the atheist to be wrong, then you must provide evidence of God. Its just a lot less work to note, "there is no evidence", then for someone to provide evidence.

As for "proper scrutiny", once someone presents evidence, a person must respond to demonstrate how the evidence is inadequate. Lets go with unicorns again. Lets say someone brought me a skull of a horse with a horn on it. I can't just dismiss that. I can't just say, "I don't believe it." At that point I need to look at your evidence. So I do. Then I point out, "There is super glue between the horn and the skull, this is obviously fake".

But, lets also not forget that if a person does not believe the evidence, that the evidence is wrong either. If I took a look at the skull and horn and just said, "Yeah, I don't believe that's real," I would still not believe in a unicorns, but I also did not invalidate the evidence that leads you to believe in unicorns either.

If an atheist insists on not believing there is evidence for a God, you provide evidence as such, and the atheist dismisses it, well, there's nothing you can do. But that dismissal did not prove your evidence wrong, or your belief wrong either.

Again, I think the author is miscontrueing anti-theism, or even people trying to prove theists beliefs are false, rather than understanding an atheist is someone who does not believe there is any evidence for a God's existence.

I think it's a pretty standard basis that any rejection of a major position in a field requires a standard in which it can be rejected. Classical mechanics was supplanted by general relativity for a reason. Einstein didn't just yell at the other scientists that they just don't have proof. In itself it facilitates a very low, generally unsuitable to any field, standard of discussion.

Edit: also I believe that's Draper who edited that.
Edit: changed qm to gr

I think it's a pretty standard basis that any rejection of a major position in a field requires a standard in which it can be rejected. — Shwah

Certainly! If we are talking about professional fields of study, I believe the standard is usually the scientific method. Provide a hypothesis, then try to prove it wrong. If you can't prove it wrong no matter how hard you try, then its likely pretty good.

Einstein didn't just yell at the other scientists that they just don't have proof. — Shwah

Here again you're conflating rude anti-theism with atheists. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're angry at atheists, or have to treat them derisively. Those are just rude, ego-centric people. You can also have theists who angrily yell at theists. How you address other people doesn't have anything to do with whether you are a theist, or an atheist.

Edit: also I believe that's Draper who edited that. — Shwah

I don't know, nor care. Who said something is much less important to me than what they said. Success in one area does not mean you will be successful in other areas, or the next day. Plenty of intelligent and capable people can say unintelligent and uncapable things when examined. If what I've stated is wrong, address those points, not the an appeal to an authority.

It wasn't really an appeal to authority any more than me citing SEP was. He's an expert in the field if it wasn't obvious from the content of the article. He actually mentions the distinction between anti-theism and atheism (at the end of the first section iirc). If you know him then you'll know his positions on anti-theism and atheism so you can read it with that in mind.

In any case, if one asks for proof then the person receiving that request is allowed to ask for the standard of the proof. If, for example, the standard required is empirical and the conception of God has no empirically knowable points, then the standard of evidence is allowed to be criticized. That would make even in the best of cases an atheist an active engager in the dialogue with a "positive" statement.

In any case, if one asks for proof then the person receiving that request is allowed to ask for the standard of the proof. — Shwah

100% in agreement here.

If, for example, the standard required is empirical, and the conception of God has no empirically knowable points, then the standard of evidence is allowed to be criticized. — Shwah

Incorrect. Lets not let words hide their clear meaning. "Empirical" simply means, "Something that can be detected/measured". In other words, something that exists. Even many of our internal feelings and emotions can be measured and detected by communicating with other people, as well as measuring the brain. Do not use ideas to avoid finding and presenting evidence.

Something that has no possibility of being measured or observed is not evidence. Now, can we observe our own internal states? Yes. I can feel that God exists. That's fine, that's your own evidence. No one can deny you feel that way. But if you want evidence that something all knowing outside of you communicates with you, then you need to show it to other people.

For example, lets say God only told you things that would lead to your success. We can set up experiments then. You tell the researcher when God tells you to do something, you do it, and we can evaluate whether its a positive or negative outcome. We can also scan your brain to see if there is some unexplainable new pattern that happens when you claim God talks to you. If so, that might be evidence of something.

Lets say God does miracles when people pray for them. We can set up studies in which people cannot be saved by medical means, then ask God to save them. If it turned out that prayer worked consistently, then we would have some evidence to work with.

Otherwise, we just have a unicorn. Someone can believe very strongly that there is a unicorn. They can live their life as if unicorn's exist. They can claim, "Unicorns just can't be detected or interacted with, but they exist" All of this is fine. But the moment they try to assert to others that a unicorn exists outside of their own personal experience, they need evidence that it exists outside of their own personal experience. That burden is on them, not on others.

I would agree with your last sentiment. An assertion is evidence but evidence with really low explanatory power and so shouldn't be used.

I would say empiricism is just a type of epistemology that requires use of one's senses. Rationalism is used even in the scientific method with hypotheses and conclusions (usually inductive arguments). We use rationalism in logic, math, linguistic propositions and metaphysics, ontology etc.

I would also say there are different standards within epistemologies (sub-epistemology, like within empiricism) like verificationism, falsificationism etc.

quote="Shwah;674294"]Rationalism is used even in the scientific method with hypotheses and conclusions (usually inductive arguments).[/quote]

True, but even rationalism needs to be tested. We can invent all the hypotheses we want, at the end of the day, it has to be put through its paces.

We use rationalism in logic, math — Shwah

And these are well tested too. Logic and math has been used in reality apart from the abstract. This feedback over the thousands of years has produced the math we use today. But even then, math is an estimate of the world, not an exact match. Further, equations can be made and misinterpreted in application.

The theory of relativity seemed sound, but it was not accepted by the community until it was observed during a solar eclipse. Anything that is worthwhile as a fact has not only been thought through, but experienced as well.

linguistic propositions and metaphysics, ontology etc — Shwah

Here we get into shakier ground. Imagination should not be confused with logic that can be used and observed. A lot of philosophy is what I call "Gandolfian philosophy". I can create an essay demonstrating how Gandolf would react in a particular situation. It would be completely logical, sound, and irrefutable. However, there's one very important part that's missed. Gandolf isn't real.

If the basis of your argument does not start with reality, it must be tested against reality for it to be taken seriously. A lot of people forget this, and get caught up in a Gandolfian essay.

Great conversation btw! If I am going on too much, forgive me, it is in my nature. But nice to have a pleasant conversation about an issue which can rile up a lot of people.

It's enjoyable for me as well.

I think logical validity requires truth preservation but soundness is whether the object exists in reality to give truth preservation. In any case, math is considered to be more sound than any experiment can yield. Physics actually imports math because of its universalness (strong explanatory power) and rigorous validity which, before galileo, was lacking in physics despite the experiments.

Good distinction here. I fear for the safety of cats if the Taliban were to find out they were all definitionally atheist.

Well, they did blow up the Buddhas of Bamiyan. So I'd still keep an eye on your pets.

Gotta love those crazy theists!

We're so bad that we started the abolitionist movement in the west which ended with the abolition of slaves. Nobody else did.

Nobody else did. — Shwah

Right. Slavery, on the other hand, was largely supported by all the non-theists that were living in the US in the early 19th Century. Certainly no Christian would ever own slaves.

Christians sin, that's biblical but nobody else had a means to ground an end to slavery. Individualism exacerbated the issue. We actually see states banning slavery through christianity until the beginnings of the 18th century when the market promoted them a lot. There was a lot of secular pushback as christians became more aware of the horrors of what was going on and became more indignant.

I speak about it in this thread
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12710/christian-abolitionism/p1

Yeah, I know about that other thread. I've been avoiding that nonsense like the plague.

So let's add up all the Christians who supported abolition and all the Christians who supported slavery. Which group do you think was bigger?

How many slave owners were non-Christian? For that matter, how many non-Christians were living in the US at that time?

I really don't want to divert from this thread's topic.

Indeed, just in time, I was just thinking of posting a thread of what constitutes theism proper.

Belief in Jehovah simply isn't like belief in Elvis. Just any idiosyncratic "belief in the existence of god or gods" cannot pass for "theism", for that renders the term so wide in meaning that it becomes useless.

Further, from an insider perspective of a religious monotheist, an atheist can also be someone who does believe that God exists, but who refuses to worship him. An atheist isn't simply someone who "lacks the belief in god or gods."

I personally would re-apply the criticism of "lacktheism" in "rocks being atheist" to any negation definition and say atheism isn't an actual position but the negation of one (same criticism I have for veganism, but not for vegetarianism, which is defined as no animal products where the latter is defined by vegetables/plants-eating).

I agree, I think theism should have a more robust definition.

Further, from an insider perspective of a religious monotheist, an atheist can also be someone who does believe that God exists, but who refuses to worship him. — baker

There's actually a name for this, its called Alatrism.

You might also consider Deists, who believe in some type of deity, but do not believe it desires worship, nor would worshiping do anything.

Does this get rid of the New Atheist movement? — Shwah

The New Atheist show was a marketing/publishing phenomenon, not a philosophical movement.

Words have usage not intrinsic meaning. Most atheists use the word to mean that they are not convinced any god/s exist. It is ususally not a knowledge claim.

I agree, I think theism should have a more robust definition. — Shwah

And it does, in its native context: in the actual religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.

I agree with that too. I'm a christian