Is Atheism the negation of Theism?

Isabel Hu

Recently, I read about Ryan Bell’s argument about atheism and theism, which suggests that atheism and theism has a relationship of symbiosis. He thinks that atheism is a negation of theism, and should be a counterpoint of theism; therefore, only if theism is a reasonable idea, atheism can continue to be a distinct idea. Firstly, I would like to reorganize his ideas as follows:
(1) If idea X is the negation of idea Y, then idea X exists only if idea Y is a credible idea.
(2) Atheism is the negation of theism.
(3) Therefore, atheism exists only if theism exists.
Based on this argument, I think that premise (1) is reasonable, as if X is the negation of Y, then Y should be a credible idea in order to make the existence of X meaningful. However, when this argument is applied to theism versus atheism, I would like to question that what if there is no way to decide whether Y is credible or not. Since we don’t have physical authentic evidence to prove that theism is credible, and we don’t have such evidence to deny that theism is credible either, then what should we do? If we want to follow the argument above, then the focus should shift back to discuss about how theism should be proved.
Regarding premise (2), I would like to discuss about whether atheism is the negation of theism. It is true that theists believe in the existence of God, and atheists believe in the non-existence of God; however, I don’t think that it directly means atheism is the negation of theism. The negation of theism should be the idea that denies the belief of the existence of God, instead of directly denying the existence of God. Without theism, atheism is still a distinct idea that claims the non-existence of God. Atheism won’t disappear if theism is not addressed. It makes me think of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa; it is true that anorexia nervosa refers to symptom that people feel nauseous when eating or just seeing food, and bulimia nervosa refers to symptom that people can’t control themselves eating though they are already full. These two ideas are opposite, but it doesn’t mean that one of them is the negation of the other. Therefore, when I see the claim that atheism is the negation of theism, I feel questionable about whether atheism should be considered as the negation of theism, or they are just opposite ideas.

Gregory

By saying that even if theism is not confronted, atheism can still live, you admit that atheism has an intellectual and aesthetic system in it's own right. If atheism is really "a religion" as believers say, than this is all the more true. Atheists don't deny that belief is real. And an atheist can have faith while meditating in the sense that he abandons himself to reality. It's semantical whether this is "a religion". If you say "God is real and atheists know it", that is a claim that goes beyond the evidence and is perhaps "false faith". Whether fundamentalist religious people are spiritually mature is debatable. When this is said to them, pride is displayed in them. They need to get over the hunch that they have that everything has to make perfect sense and be perfectly clear. An Eastern guru migght say this is a holding on to their Egos too much

Pro Hominem

This is why I don't describe myself as an atheist. I prefer the term "post-theist".

I agree with the implications of your OP, which is that to claim atheism logically requires theism. The term literally describes the condition of being against or in opposition to theism. The further implication then is that theism is a position that requires engagement, one must take a position on it.

I give theism little thought, and don't believe that holding a strictly rational view of the world requires one to engage with theism at all. The term atheism should be seen as loaded, similar to the term "pro-life". It is polemical and attempts to put words or ideas in one's mouth and mind that need not be there.

I believe that a more historically correct and rationally sound labeling for these two ideas would be "post-theist", and "pre-rational".

180 Proof

Welcome to TPF, Isabel!

It is true that theists believe in the existence of God, ... — Isabel Hu

Agreed.

... and atheists ~~believe in~~ the non-existence of God; ...

Perhaps, but this formulation is incoherent; atheism, rather, is a second-order claim that theistic Tokens - theistic deities - are fictions or, as you suggest, a "denial of the belief" that deities exist, and not a first order claim that denies (as theism affirms) deities exist.

... however, I don’t think that it directly means atheism is the negation of theism.

As noted above.

The negation of theism should be the idea that denies the belief of the existence of God, instead of directly denying the existence of God.

And here it is crucial, for coherence sake, to define g/G by distinguishing which Type or Token belief we're talking about.

By Type-belief I mean a 'conception of divinity' or, better yet, deity-class (e.g. theism, deism, animism, etc)

By Token-belief, thereby, I mean a member of some deity-class (i.e. a particular instance of a Type-belief) such as Jehovah or Zeus, both of which belong to the deity-class of theism.

Denying the latter I refer to as atheism (i.e. theistic g/G Tokens, or members of theism-class, are fictions) which is entailed by denying the former which I also refer to as antitheism (i.e. theism g/G Type, or theism (consisting of claims about - predicates ascribed to - g/G), is not true). Both address theism - "belief about g/G", as you point out - and not g/G itself.

So I agree with you, Isabel, that 'atheism is not the negation of theism'; rather atheism is a logical consequence of antitheism (if only in my own formulation) which explicitly negates - falsifies the distinctive claims of - theism.

Without theism, atheism is still a distinct idea ~~that~~ claims ~~the non-existence of~~ God.

Perhaps incoherently.

Atheism won’t disappear if theism is not addressed.

Unreflectively, in an everyday practical sense, no doubt. We live without - expect that there aren't any - dragons or giants even though we don't actively "address" beliefs in the existence of dragons or giants.

I believe that a more historically correct and rationally sound labeling for these two ideas would be "post-theist", and "pre-rational". — Pro Hominem

Understandable. If I have to label myself, I prefer 'antitheist' (or just freethinker).

tim wood

1) If idea X is the negation of idea Y, then idea X exists only if idea Y is a credible idea.
(2) Atheism is the negation of theism.
(3) Therefore, atheism exists only if theism exists. — Isabel Hu

Operative and key (imo) in all of this is the word "idea." Second is negation, and there's a subtlety here: "not Y" is not the same as "not-Y." E.g., X is not Y differs from X is not-Y. Do you see it?

Without consideration for what the words mean, one supposes that a-theism arises out of theism in the sense that without X, you cannot follow a path from X (which isn't) to a-X. But as an idea, you can have it, and why not? And even argue that theism arises out of a-theism! But neither requires in themselves any credibility at all.

And then there is the problem of equivocation in the use of "exists" in the conclusion which seems to differ from its usage in the first premise.

Pro Hominem

I believe that a more historically correct and rationally sound labeling for these two ideas would be "post-theist", and "pre-rational".
— Pro Hominem
Understandable. If I have to label myself, I prefer 'antitheist' (or just freethinker). — 180 Proof

The reason I included history in the mix is that I generally like the concept of history as the "Great Conversation", which denotes a sort of meandering progress of human thought - an evolution. In that context I view theism as an intermediary stepping stone, a juvenile state, of our collective ideas. It played a role in advancing us to the point of rationality, and now the rational-scientific worldview is charged with moving the baton forward to reveal the next phase in the future. In this conception, it is predictable that the previous worldview will linger, and act as something of a drag on progress until it can be marginalized and its negative effects mostly nullified. I see tribalism as the precursor to theism, and we are still dealing with that as well.

Anyway, this more or less linear conception of things is where I derive "pre-rational" and post-theist" from.

JerseyFlight

(1) If idea X is the negation of idea Y, then idea X exists only if idea Y is a credible idea.
(2) Atheism is the negation of theism.
(3) Therefore, atheism exists only if theism exists. — Isabel Hu

This is complete and utter nonsense, what no one on this thread can see is that this is mere formalism, the term existence does not refer to actual existence, but empty, abstract concepts. Refutation: A-Snarkism can only exist if Snarkism exists. This is a waste of time, it is sophistry, the creator of this argument is simply trying to prove a formality and pass it off as a concrete reality. Yes, there are people in the world who believe in make-believe phantoms, there are also people who refute their delusions. In what sense then can theism be said to exist? The discourse should never be carried out at this level, the originator of this argument should have his bottom paddled until he admits that Snarkism is an idea without substance.

Gus Lamarch

This is complete and utter nonsense, what no one on this thread can see is that this is mere formalism, the term existence does not refer to actual existence, but empty, abstract concepts. — JerseyFlight

True enough. The only part of the equation that you forgot to implement in your argument, is that concepts only have essence and weight, if we put our beliefs in those same ideas. The "human" item still weighs heavily. The consequence of this human interference is the fact that theism is still seen as something real, and atheism arises right after theism - whenever "1" comes into existence, all other possibilities gain potential to be conceived as well. - like "2", "-1" or even "∞" - -.

3017amen

agree with the implications of your OP, which is that to claim atheism logically requires theism. The term literally describes the condition of being against or in opposition to theism. The further implication then is that theism is a position that requires engagement, one must take a position on it. — Pro Hominem

I agree. It fits nicely into the unity of opposites principle.

Furthermore, anytime an atheist makes a positive statement of no God, they unwittingly put themselves in a precarious and untenable position of proving same.

Denial= a statement that something is not true.

↪Isabel Hu

nice post!

3017amen

This is complete and utter nonsense, what no one on this thread can see is that this is mere formalism, the term existence does not refer to actual existence, but empty, abstract concepts — JerseyFlight

The ironic thing is you are very likely to use formalism as your criteria for no God.

↪Isabel Hu

JerseyFlight

Furthermore, anytime an atheist makes a positive statement of no God, they unwittingly put themselves in a precarious and untenable position of proving same. — 3017amen

It is impossible to make such a statement without first defining the term God.

3017amen

↪JerseyFlight

Atheism already defined it as a negation, per OP.

Your point?

Gus Lamarch

Your point? — 3017amen

:lol:

JerseyFlight

↪3017amen

I am an atheist. The moment you assault me with the word God is the same moment I demand that you explain what you mean by the term. I do not jump to conclusions, I will arrive at them once you have defined your term. If another atheist wants to jump to conclusions without a clarification of the term, they have gone too far, they skipped a step, they are not thinking about what is being presented to them.

3017amen

The "human" item still weighs heavily. The consequence of this human interference is the fact that theism is still seen as something real, and atheism arises right after theism - whenever "1" comes into existence, all other possibilities — Gus Lamarch

Yep. Another reason formal logic (a priori) by itself (and associated concepts) have limited impacts on the " sentient " human condition.

DingoJones

↪JerseyFlight

Are there any gods that you wouldn't be an atheist about? Have you ever had god defined in a way you weren’t atheistic about (without the term “god” being a simple placeholder for something else like “universe” or “happiness” of course)?

JerseyFlight

Are there any gods that you wouldn't be an atheist about? — DingoJones

Again, trying to smuggle in the premise. Define God and then our conversation can begin.

Do you believe in a God?

Gus Lamarch

Are there any gods that you wouldn't be an atheist about? — DingoJones

I think a good question for him would be:

Are you resentful that you're not God?

@JerseyFlight

3017amen

I demand that you explain what you mean by the term. I do not jump to conclusion — JerseyFlight

In Christianity: Jesus.

In logic and ontology: logical necessity.

In phenomenology: the religious experience.

With respect to the OP, we can start with your negation of theism which would be a spin-off from item two... ?

DingoJones

↪JerseyFlight

No, I do not. Does that mean you will answer my question now?

JerseyFlight

↪DingoJones

No, because you are asking me to produce my own negative. Fuck off.

JerseyFlight

Jesus. — 3017amen

How do you know that Jesus is God?

3017amen

↪Gus Lamarch

It seems to me in my experience, more often than not, atheists are angry. Even Einstein recognized the phenomenon. He coined the term "fanatical atheist."

DingoJones

I think a good question for him would be:

Are you resentful that you''re not God? — Gus Lamarch

I always find it very rude when someone uses a response to me to actually be talking to someone else. Please don’t involve me in your squabbling sir.

3017amen

How do you know that Jesus is God? — JerseyFlight

Historical accounting.

JerseyFlight

↪3017amen

Historical accounting. — 3017amen

I have no idea what this means? You are telling me that a historical person is God and you know this because you read it in old documents?

3017amen

, because you are asking me to produce my own negative. Fuck off.
3m — JerseyFlight

↪Gus Lamarch

See what I mean? Many atheist put a lot of emotional energy into their belief system, drop f-bombs frequently, etc.. Emotions are good, but unfortunately, for many of them it seems to be manifested in a bad way. Usually something traumatic has happened in their past. I certainly get that... .

Gus Lamarch

It seems to me in my experience, more often than not, atheists are angry. Even Einstein recognized the phenomenon. He coined the term "fanatical atheist." — 3017amen

Should we call it "resentment" or should we feel pity for them? I'm an atheist and I can't help feeling sorry for us. If a God exists, humanity still has a purpose; if not, we need to construct a purpose - and humanity has great difficulty in creating purposes for itself -.

Gus Lamarch

I always find it very rude when someone uses a response to me to actually be talking to someone else. — DingoJones

Sorry, I'll not quote you anymore in these cases. Thank you for clarifying.

Gus Lamarch

See what I mean? Many atheist put a lot of emotional energy into their belief system drop f-bombs frequently. Emotions are good, but unfortunately, for many of them it seems to be manifested in a bad way. — 3017amen

We agree.

DingoJones

↪JerseyFlight

Lol, no Im not. I was just curious about whether or not your adamancy about defining “god” before discussing has ever actually resulted in a definition that you were not atheistic about. I'm not sure why you are so hostile, it was just an honest question. No reason not to be a lady.

Is Atheism the negation of Theism?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions