Reviewing: “Deep Dive into the Meaning of Atheism”

Atheism is a polysemous term, and I’ve written a lot about the Evolution of Atheism and the Etymology vs Use/Definition often differs from what people expect. I’ve addressed Issues With Agnostic Atheism, Definitional Problems with Lacking Belief, Is The ‘lack of belief’ Definition of Atheism The Most Common One Used?, What is the Difference Between Does Not Believe and Lack of Belief?, along with my preferred use of atheism: Atheism as a Proposition, and Logic, Language & Linguistics – How to Analyse Definitions, among a tonne of others that, if you are a regular reader, I am sure you will have at least skimmed.

Given the article
The Start of the Deep Dive
Summarising the Article
- Key Positives and Negatives of the Article

Given the article

I was passed an article that I have yet to actually read being informed that the person described themselves as an agnostic positive atheist, questioned what I thought they meant by that:

I think he would mean he believes no gods exist but isn’t claiming knowledge. Which is superfluous because he’d have said knows instead of believes. Haven’t had a chance to read it yet though so I could be wrong.
https://twitter.com/answersinreason/status/1658856488205533186

The Start of the Deep Dive

So, as of yet, I have got as far as opening the link. I like to review stuff like this fresh, and then post hoc tweak the article so it is more presentable.

We can view this article here: https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

Intro

People disagree about what atheism means. This essay aims to communicate my understanding of the term, and a few related topics. My intent is not to prescribe, but to better describe my specific position on the matter and to encourage contemplation.
This article offers no arguments for or against God. The purpose is to explore and define the different positions that people have on whether God exists or not.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

This is actually a good start. There is an acknowledgement of the polysemous nature of atheism, and how he prefers to use the term. My only concern is, if it is a “deep dive” but the first paragraph is “I am going to tell you how I like to use the term” is there going to be much investigation to other terms?

TL;DR

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods
Agnosticism is the belief that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not
It is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic because the terms address two different considerations—that of belief and knowledge—which are not mutually exclusive
If the limited summary above are the reader’s only takeaway, I would feel reasonably satisfied. However, these points do not paint the whole picture and I would encourage readers to consider the full essay for nuance and completeness.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods

One definition of atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods.. it is the definition that essentially conflates nontheism and atheism.

This is fine, but if that is all atheism is, then atheism is a set rather than a rational position or even a position at all. It can also lead to people describing Anything Not Theist as Atheist and I really have had enough of rocktheism.

Agnosticism is the belief that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not.

ONE use of agnosticism is the belief or claim that it is not possible to know whether gods or the supernatural exists or not. This is known as hard agnosticism.

It is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic

It is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic because the terms address two different considerations—that of belief and knowledge—which are not mutually exclusive
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

This is the first time I actually groaned. Knowledge is a subset of belief. Therefore if you are using atheism to mean you “lack belief” then you’re already stating you “lack knowledge”. Having a belief doesn’t entail having knowledge, but, having knowledge does entail having a belief.

Yes, it is possible, depending on the definitions used, to be an agnostic atheist but the term is largely nonsensical or superfluous.

If the limited summary above are the reader’s only takeaway, I would feel reasonably satisfied. However, these points do not paint the whole picture and I would encourage readers to consider the full essay for nuance and completeness.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

If the limited summary is the reader’s only takeaway, it would be a shame. I hope the rest of the article shows a genuine deep dive.

Terminology

In this essay:
“God” is broadly defined as a supernatural being with a will that intentionally intervenes in the natural universe
For simplicity and style, “God” is substituted for “a God or gods”. All references of God should be read to include both monotheism and polytheism
“Lacks belief”, “rejects belief”, “does not believe”, and “disbelieves” are used interchangeably to mean “lacks belief”. It should be taken that “disbelieves x” does not mean “believes not x”
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

Whether I agree with his terminology or not at this state is not important. What I like is he is explicit with how he is using the terms. The important part of communication is that we understand each other, and as I mentioned in Sin-onyms; The sinful use of synonyms you can end up with a lack of belief/does not believe from disbelieves even though that isn’t how it is normatively used.

That said, I do have to address that; when discussing propositions, if we want to end up in a rational position, then we should perhaps apply propositional logic.

Part 1—What Atheism Is

Belief

To define what atheism is, we would do well to first clarify what atheism is about. So I’ll start there.
Atheism is about belief. Specifically, atheism describes a position with respect to belief on whether God exists. In other words, atheism, like theism, concerns belief.
What is belief? Eric Schwitzgebel writes:
“Contemporary philosophers of mind generally use the term ‘belief’ to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn’t involve actively reflecting on it^[1].”
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

There is no argument from me here, a belief can be described as an or all of:

Accepting something as true
A positive attitude towards a proposition
Something you conclude is most likely/probable
Thinking something is probably the case
etc

Watch this video on YouTube.

Knowledge

There is a difference between what we believe and what we know.
It is accepted that belief is a condition for knowledge^[2a], meaning that knowledge is a subset of belief. In other words, to know something is to believe it, but crucially, if we do not know something, we necessarily still either believe it or not.
There is not an agreed-upon definition for knowledge in epistemology (the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge^[3]). Many philosophers still depend on Plato’s definition: knowledge is justified true belief^[4].
That is, a person (S) knows something (p) if:
p is true
S believes that p
S is justified in believing that p^[2b]
The justification condition means that it is not knowledge if a person believes a true thing by luck. In 1963, Edmund Gettier showed there are possible cases where justified true belief is not knowledge because the justified belief is only true as a result of luck^[5]. Ever since, philosophers have tried to solve this problem by strengthening the justification condition, or by adding “degettiering” conditions (JTB+X), or by proposing new definitions for knowledge^[2c]. To this day, no consensus has been reached.
For the purpose of this essay, which is concerned about belief more so than knowledge, we may comfortably ignore the Gettier problem. “Knowledge is justified true belief” will suffice.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

No issues here either, I regard JTB to be a good finger in the air of most knowledge. All the other theories of knowledge actually seem to be refining how to deal with problems with both/either/or the justification and truth.

Why Theism and Atheism Matter

It goes without saying that we should aim to know as much as possible. But it follows that we believe more things than what we actually know, and because it is evident that our beliefs affect our behaviour^[6], what we believe is at least as important as what we know, if not more so.
Belief in the Christian God, for example, will likely influence the believer’s attitude on topics such as education, women’s rights, and climate change, and their attitude will likely affect how they vote for public policy, which in turn, will affect people who do not share the Christian’s belief.
For this reason, the topics of theism and atheism matter.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

Agreed, just remember theism isn’t necessarily the same as Christianity or religion. You can have non-religious theists, and you can have religious atheists.

What is Agnosticism?

“I’m an agnostic, not an atheist,” is a familiar point of view in my experience. One plausible implication hidden in this view is the belief that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.
In truth, a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic. This is possible because [on the question whether God exists] atheism describes a position with respect to belief, while agnosticism describes a position with respect to knowledge, two separate concerns^[7].
Agnosticism is the belief that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not^[8a].
As reasoned before: if we do not know something, we must still either believe it or not. It follows that an agnostic still either believes that God exists or not. Put differently, an agnostic is necessarily a theist or an atheist.
Agnosticism is not, as some may believe, a middle ground between theism and atheism.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

This section is at least somewhat problematic, and I’ll have to break it down to address it

“I’m an agnostic, not an atheist,”

“I’m an agnostic, not an atheist,” is a familiar point of view in my experience. One plausible implication hidden in this view is the belief that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive.

It might just be that they understand that when discussing propositions, stating you are agnostic is the position of suspense of judgement.

Theist: (Bp ^ ¬B¬p)
Atheist: (B¬p ^ ¬Bp)
Agnostic: (¬Bp ^ ¬B¬p)

If a theist or atheist claimed/had knowledge of their position above they would still hold those positions as they would still be in the same set, they would just be saying they have a JT to go with their B. The psychological state of being agnostic is simply suspending judgement.

Nowadays, the term “agnostic” is often used (when the issue is God’s existence) to refer to those who follow the recommendation expressed in the conclusion of Huxley’s argument: an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false. Not surprisingly, then, the term “agnosticism” is often defined, both in and outside of philosophy, not as a principle or any other sort of proposition but instead as the psychological state of being an agnostic. Call this the “psychological” sense of the term
Draper – Atheism and Agnosticism

There are some that even hold a strict adherence to Huxlian agnosticism.

A person can be both an atheist and an agnostic.

In truth, a person can be both an atheist and an agnostic. This is possible because [on the question whether God exists] atheism describes a position with respect to belief, while agnosticism describes a position with respect to knowledge, two separate concerns^[7].
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

Ok, but with the way you describe agnosticism is actually ‘Hard Agnosticism’ which is the belief/claim that it is impossible to know, not necessarily a knowledge position itself as such, and one that is often regarded and an unjustifiable one in and of itself. Though one could take how hard it is to justify hard agnosticism as justification for hard agnosticism I guess…

In this part of the article I just have to say that this is partly true in the sense it comes down to how you are definition the terms.

However, if you accept hard agnosticism, and you are some form of atheist/non-theist.. that isn’t the same as agnostic atheism.

Agnosticism is…

Agnosticism is the belief that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not^[8a].
As reasoned before: if we do not know something, we must still either believe it or not. It follows that an agnostic still either believes that God exists or not. Put differently, an agnostic is necessarily a theist or an atheist.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

One type of agnosticism is that. “Put differently, an agnostic is necessarily a theist or an atheist.” I think my main argument here is down to the preferred terminology. I would phrase it as: Put differently, an agnostic is necessarily a theist or a nontheist. Some refer to nontheists as atheists.

At the start, he claimed to not be prescriptive with his terminology, yet here he is using ‘necessarily’. This is my main issue.

Agnosticism is not…

Agnosticism is not, as some may believe, a middle ground between theism and atheism.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

Again, this is far too firm of a claim about agnosticism considering the original coining of agnosticism by TH Huxley to how agnosticism is usually used today.

I will agree it isn’t exactly a middle ground as such though. Theism and Atheism when used as the belief or proposition God or gods do/do not exist are talking about the nature of god(s) being. They are ontological positions.

shoaib malik atheism agnosticism from defining atheism and the burden of proof — Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof Shoaib A Malik https://www.academia.edu/38565036/Defining_Atheism_and_the_Burden_of_Proof

Soft/Weak Agnosticism and Hard/Strong agnosticism are epistemological positions about ontological positions.

Now, Theism/Atheism are not knowledge positions as such, they can be viewed as propositions (as they are -isms, therefore, are the propositional content of the belief they are described as) and the atheist/theist do not make a knowledge claim simply by accepting one or the other.

What is Atheism?

Following are three definitions for atheism:
The lack of belief in the existence of a God or god^[8b]—the Oxford Dictionaries definition, and it is a good one
The rejection of all theistic claims of God’s existence—I dislike and avoid this definition because people can misunderstand what is meant by the word “rejection”, ascribing unwarranted qualities such as wilfulness to the atheist. In context, rejection simply means disbelief.
When you cannot truthfully affirm, “I believe God exists”—my preferred definition. It is my own wording of a description I read somewhere^[9]. I like this definition because it communicates the essence of atheism while also encouraging contemplation. People may just wonder, “Am I an atheist?”
Note: the only fact that we can extract from the single label, “atheism”, is that all atheists do not believe in the existence of God. Inferring any quality beyond this fact is speculation.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

Here we can see some examples of quote mining, you haven’t presented other definitions – and the Oxford Dictionary’s definition is actually the Oxford learners I believe. You’ve basically just provided 3 lack of belief definitions and ignored others.

Dictionaries are descriptive, so they describe how words are commonly used. If enough people started using atheism to mean someone that eats cheese sandwiches it would be in there. Li terally had one of its definitions equivalent to figuratively because so many people used literally to mean figuratively. Irregardless has been added to the dictionary.

Dictionaries do not prescribe use, unless in the format of a technical dictionary where it has context-specific definitions.

Here are some more definitions for you

Also, please note that it says “disbelieves or lacks belief” in the Lexico definition, thus showing that there must be a difference between the two words even if they can be used synonymously. I understand how you are using disbelieve in your article, but in works that are not your article are not necessarily using them the same way.

Negative and Positive Atheism

So, atheists lack belief in the existence of God.
Many people take this to mean that atheists must therefore believe that God does not exist^[10]. On the flip side, there is an opinion that atheism is only ever the lack of belief in God’s existence^[11]. Both these views are false.
In this context, there are two types of atheism, as described by Antony Flew^[12][13]:
Negative Atheism—the lack of belief in the existence of God. Also known as Weak or Soft Atheism
Positive Atheism—the belief that God does not exist. Also known as Strong or Hard Atheism
What is the difference between “the lack of belief in existence” and the “belief in non-existence”? Are they not effectively the same? We may be tempted to think so, but that would be a mistake.
To show the difference and why the distinction matters, Matt Dillahunty’s analogy about gumballs proves helpful^[14].
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

One thing to note here is that Flew’s invention of the negative atheist was a bit more than simply lacking belief in gods, in fact, it was much more like the position of an ignostic or theological non-cognitivist.

Flew Presumption of Atheism — The Presumption of Atheism – Anthony Flew https://amzn.to/2Rxqmhp

Dave actually has a good video on the gumball analogy and some of the problems it has (at least through general misunderstandings):

Watch this video on YouTube.

Or if you prefer to read (like I do) then he has written it here: The Gumball Analogy.

The Gumball Analogy and Belief Positions

Your next section goes on to address the gumball analogy which I don’t think really needs to be covered in more detail than I (or should I say Dave) already have done.

What I will say is, the problem comes down to linguistic clarity.

When answering a proposition one ought to give a read on if they think it is true and if they think it is false.

When one answers I don’t believe the proposition, it sounds like they are saying they disbelieve it (in the sense of believing it false) because they are not saying that they are suspending judgement or that they are unsure if the proposition is true or false.

This is a problem with clarity of language though, I do agree that if you say “I don’t believe x” you’re not necessarily saying “I believe x is false” – in fact, there are Different Types of Not Believing.

I’d also suggest that perhaps you need to think about “default position” style arguments.

Gumball to God

We can apply our learnings to the binary proposition of God.
God exists
God does not exist
Theists and Positive Atheists
Theists believe claim (a) and positive atheists believe claim (b).
Both groups have a burden of proof if they are determined to convince other people of their beliefs or if their beliefs meaningfully impact people who do not share their beliefs.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

I will say that many misunderstand the burden of proof, especially when it comes to discussion, but everyone does have a burden to justify their position, at least to themselves if they care about rationality.

Negative atheists do not believe claim (a) and they do not believe claim (b).
They do not have a burden of proof. Even if they are determined to convince other people not to believe theists and positive atheists, their only responsibility would be to argue that theists and positive atheists have failed to meet their burden of proof and therefore belief is not warranted.

So, you are putting negative atheists in the suspense of judgment position which is often known as the psychological state of being agnostic – this is different to hard agnosticism.

Your comment that they have no burden of proof is someone in error here. Their burden to make sure they are rationally suspending judgement is to address the arguments for god existing and the arguments for god not existing and explain why the found none of them compelling.

Combining Belief and Knowledge

Consider the following broad definitions:
Gnostic—a person who claims to know
Agnostic—a person who does not claim to know

A few things here, a claim to know is not the same as knowing. Know and knowledge are (or at least can be) different too.

If we consider the greek, episteme is where knowledge comes from (hence epistemology) – epistemological knowledge is knowledge-that a proposition is true/false and relevant justification.

There are also other kinds of knowledge like knowledge-of and knowledge-how, for example. Gno is closer to the knowledge-of kinds. We just have to examine the etymology to get a bit more understanding of this.

Gno – to know
Gignoskein – learn to know, come to know, perceive; discern, distinguish; observe, form a judgement.
Gnostos/gnotos – Known, perceived, understood
Gnostikos – Knowing, Good at Knowing, Able to discern
Gnostic (noun) – Believer in a mystical religious doctrine of spiritual knowledge
Gnostic (adjective) – Relating to knowledge especially mystical or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things.

The Gnostics were a sect of Christians that essentially claimed to have special knowledge-of god/spiritual things.

Huxley coined agnosticism due to the arrogance of both theists and atheists of his time and as he felt they all acted like “Gnostics” he chose “Agnostic” to describe his epistemological position, which has since morphed into a few uses.

If we combine this with our understanding of a theist and an atheist, it can help to better describe a person’s overall position on whether God exists^[17]:
Gnostic Theist—a person who believes and claims to know that God exists
Gnostic Atheist—a person who believes and claims to know that God does not exist
Agnostic Theist—a person who believes but does not claim to know that God exists
Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic Positive Atheist—a person who believes but does not claim to know that God does not exist
Agnostic Negative Atheist—a person who does not believe and therefore cannot claim to know that God exists or not
Another way to look at it is that gnostic (a)theists have certainty while agnostic (a)theists do not.
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

This is the sort of thing I bring up in my article The English Language Barrier where I address making terminology overly broad and replacing terms that already exist with unnecessary ones.

If I believe no gods exist, under my use I am simply an atheist. Believing something is not the same as claiming knowledge. Your “Agnostic positive atheist” is simply Atheist to me. I might also claim to know, but I see no reason to mark that in my position, I will simply address that in conversation.

If I do not believe something, as knowledge is a subset of belief, it is already entailed I don’t have knowledge, so the addition of agnostic to negative atheist here is completely superfluous. What’s more, you describe the agnostic negative atheist as the suspense of judgement position… which is the psychological state of being agnostic.

So, where I say, ‘Atheist’, you say, ‘Agnostic Positive Atheist’.
and where I say ‘Agnostic’, you say, ‘Agnostic Negative Atheist’.

This seems like an unnecessary addition of words… not to mention you’re not using agnostic here in the way you defined it above. The claim it is impossible to know whether gods do or do not exist is quite different to not claiming to have knowledge of gods’ existence.

You spent a chunk of time defining agnosticism as hard agnosticism and then switched the use “not claiming to have knowledge.” I’ve gone over the sections looking for your justification for switching definitions but it isn’t explained, it just seems to be a result of the gumball analogy and that realisation that there is a “middle position” where you don’t accept a proposition as true or false.

Not to mention at the end where you bring in certainty, which sounds like you’re speaking of psychological certainty, which again seems to confuse the whole thing.

Implicit and Explicit Atheism

As described by George H. Smith, atheism may be divided broadly into two categories^[18a][19]:
Implicit Atheism—the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it
Explicit Atheism—the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it
Examples of implicit atheism are people who have no familiarity with the idea of God, such as…
https://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/deep-dive-into-the-meaning-of-atheism/

So this looks like you’re separating negative atheism or non-theism into two further categories here.

Implicit atheism seems to be a lot like the position known as innocence.

Innocence is absence of acquaintance with the claim that there is at least one god. Innocents
do not have any thoughts about gods; hence, in particular, innocents neither believe that there
is at least one god nor believe that there are no gods. Innocent worldviews say nothing at all
about gods, not even, for example, that some people believe that there is at least one god. In
the typical case, innocents do not understand what it would be for something to be a god: they
lack the concepts upon which such understanding depends. Examples of innocents include:
human neonates, chimpanzees, humans with grievous brain injuries, and humans with
advanced neurological disorders.
Graham Oppy
https://philarchive.org/archive/OPPITC

Why is there this need to ascribe atheism to everything not theist? If atheism is supposed to be a rational position, implicit atheism fails completely, as if you haven’t even heard a proposition you can’t have reasoned your way into that conclusion. In fact, you haven’t made a conclusion at all, implicit atheism is a total lack of a position altogether.

So, I ask again, Why is there this need to ascribe atheism to everything not theist?

Davidian

I’m Joe. I write under the name Davidian, not only because it is a Machine Head song I enjoy but because it was a game character I used to role-play that was always looking to better himself.

This is one of many things I hope to do with Answers In Reason.

I run our Twitter and IG accounts, as well as share responsibility for our FB group and page, and maintain the site, whilst writing articles, DJing, Podcasting (and producing), keeping fit and more.

Feel free to read a more detailed bio here: https://www.answers-in-reason.com/about/authors/4/

You can find my main social links here:

Twitter(Air): https://twitter.com/answersinreason
Twitter(ADHD): https://twitter.com/Davidian_ADHD
TikTok (AiR): https://www.tiktok.com/@answersinreason
TikTok (ADHD): https://www.tiktok.com/@adultadhdjourney

Ask me a question on Wisdom: https://app.wisdom.audio/ask/0be23c32-0fac-4d8f-bf68-671d9c8a3b95

www.answers-in-reason.com