I have seen a resurgence of discussion surrounding definitions and uses of words like "atheism" and "agnosticism". In addition, I have also seen the issue of burdens of justification talked about in a similar context. I think that a lot of the disagreement that exists in atheist and skeptic communities revolves around definitional differences and is exacerbated by a lot of people talking past each other. Because of this, I thought that I would contribute my two cents and see if I can at least clear things up for myself.
First and foremost, the big disagreement revolves around the definition of "atheism" itself. Some claim that the word means or ought to mean the rejection of theistic claims; others claim that it ought to mean the belief that there is no God or are no gods; and yet others claim that the word should be interpreted through the grammatical logic of its composition as simply meaning "not theism", which would mean a simple lack of belief in the people it concerns. There are good and bad arguments for and against each of these positions.
First and foremost, the big disagreement revolves around the definition of "atheism" itself. Some claim that the word means or ought to mean the rejection of theistic claims; others claim that it ought to mean the belief that there is no God or are no gods; and yet others claim that the word should be interpreted through the grammatical logic of its composition as simply meaning "not theism", which would mean a simple lack of belief in the people it concerns. There are good and bad arguments for and against each of these positions.
Going in reverse order, I will start with the "lack of belief" definitional claim. I'll start with what I think the strengths of this definition are. In the first place, this definition could be inferred directly from the word if someone didn't already know what it was. This allows for a certain transparency in meaning. This definition also follows the logical grammar of the word setup, which allows for a reduction of ambiguity during philosophical or technical discussion about the issue. People often criticize this definition for being too broad. They claim that it would open the doors to cats, babies, and rocks all being atheists, since the technically lack beliefs in gods. I think this is a bad argument simply because we have other words that could similarly be applied to seemingly absurd objects or parties, but that we're fine with using only in their sensible ways. The perfect example of this is "asexual". Technically, rocks are asexual, since they don't have sex, but it's not useful to talk about them that way; it can be taken as granted that rocks will be asexual. If a mature human is asexual, or an organism reproduces without sex, then the word is useful to use. A more valid criticism of this definition of the word is simple common and technical usage. I strongly tend toward descriptivism in my opinions on language, and in the case of the word "atheism", where it hasn't mean "amorality" historically, it has meant the belief that there is no God and are no gods. In philosophical circles, this has also been the long-time meaning of the word. This third definition includes this common and technical definition, but it is not exclusive to them.
The middle meaning of "atheism" is the classical definition of the word. This is the one that means the belief that God or gods don't exist. The benefit here is obvious: the word means what it already means, and not much has to be changed. The disadvantage here is that the word doesn't perfectly comply to logic in the sense of grammar. In addition, to the people who identify as atheists in this sense, they would adopt a burden of justification for their belief. As Ozymandias Ramses II of Youtube points out, however, this justification isn't too cumbersome to discharge. It is also different from the belief that God or gods can't exist, which has a much larger burden of justification.
The third definition is, I will confess, my favorite of the three. This is not because I think that it is particularly more meritorious than the others; I simply like how it sounds the best. In this definition, the rejection of theistic claims, it sort of combines the strengths and weaknesses of the other two definitions. This is not exactly the case, but it is fairly close. With the rejection definition, it means that the individual in question (the "atheist" whom this "atheism" describes) is familiar with at least some god claims, but doesn't accept them as true. This still includes the second definition of the negative beliefs, but is not quite as open as the third definition. It automatically excludes those individuals who are unfamiliar with theistic claims, getting rid of the first problem for the third definition; however, it is still subject to the problems of grammar-defiance and common-use-defiance of the other definitions.
So, which of these definitions is the best? I am prepared to claim that not only do I not know which is best, but that I also think there isn't a best one. As long as we have enough terms to cover all of the various logical points a positions, I don't really care what these terms are. The important criteria are, I think, that there is a consensus of opinion (or at least use) in the atheist community and that there is an ultimate successful penetration of public consciousness with this definition.
I see no inherent problem with attempting a top-down definitional change for a word or words. It has happened in the past without damaging the discourse of the subject. One of my favorite examples of this is the concerted effort the homosexual community applied to getting the word "gay" to mean "homosexual". Their approach was technically top-down (through activism), and I think that it was largely successful. Most people in the English-speaking world now think of homosexuality first when they hear the word "gay". I also think that this movement hasn't damaged the discussion about social or scientific/logical issues in homosexuality. I am not drawing a parallel between the social rights of homosexuals and the social perceptions of atheists. I'm comparing the actual process of word-changing.
In the end, I almost wish that we could just make up entirely new words for all of these issues and positions. That, however, would be a tall order to get permeated throughout public consciousness!
The middle meaning of "atheism" is the classical definition of the word. This is the one that means the belief that God or gods don't exist. The benefit here is obvious: the word means what it already means, and not much has to be changed. The disadvantage here is that the word doesn't perfectly comply to logic in the sense of grammar. In addition, to the people who identify as atheists in this sense, they would adopt a burden of justification for their belief. As Ozymandias Ramses II of Youtube points out, however, this justification isn't too cumbersome to discharge. It is also different from the belief that God or gods can't exist, which has a much larger burden of justification.
The third definition is, I will confess, my favorite of the three. This is not because I think that it is particularly more meritorious than the others; I simply like how it sounds the best. In this definition, the rejection of theistic claims, it sort of combines the strengths and weaknesses of the other two definitions. This is not exactly the case, but it is fairly close. With the rejection definition, it means that the individual in question (the "atheist" whom this "atheism" describes) is familiar with at least some god claims, but doesn't accept them as true. This still includes the second definition of the negative beliefs, but is not quite as open as the third definition. It automatically excludes those individuals who are unfamiliar with theistic claims, getting rid of the first problem for the third definition; however, it is still subject to the problems of grammar-defiance and common-use-defiance of the other definitions.
So, which of these definitions is the best? I am prepared to claim that not only do I not know which is best, but that I also think there isn't a best one. As long as we have enough terms to cover all of the various logical points a positions, I don't really care what these terms are. The important criteria are, I think, that there is a consensus of opinion (or at least use) in the atheist community and that there is an ultimate successful penetration of public consciousness with this definition.
I see no inherent problem with attempting a top-down definitional change for a word or words. It has happened in the past without damaging the discourse of the subject. One of my favorite examples of this is the concerted effort the homosexual community applied to getting the word "gay" to mean "homosexual". Their approach was technically top-down (through activism), and I think that it was largely successful. Most people in the English-speaking world now think of homosexuality first when they hear the word "gay". I also think that this movement hasn't damaged the discussion about social or scientific/logical issues in homosexuality. I am not drawing a parallel between the social rights of homosexuals and the social perceptions of atheists. I'm comparing the actual process of word-changing.
In the end, I almost wish that we could just make up entirely new words for all of these issues and positions. That, however, would be a tall order to get permeated throughout public consciousness!
No comments:
Post a Comment