Incorrect Definitions of Atheism, continued

[Maverick]

I brought this up on the old message board in this thread.

According to the dictionary, atheism is defined as the following:

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
3. Godlessness; immorality.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

In the old thread, I quickly dismissed definitions 2 and 3 on the basis that atheism is not a doctrine or a moral stance. But I want to discuss the first definition with more depth.

My response to the first definition on the old message board was as follows:

Maverick

1. This definition is almost correct. The only thing that makes it incorrect is the addition of the word: denial. Atheists do not deny that a god exists - in order to do so they would have to believe in one first. They don't believe in a deity's existence. Denial is not a part of atheism. (Sadly, even atheists still adhere to the denial part of this flawed definition - even though being an atheist that denies god isn't logically possible.)

Someone then tried to argue that definition 1 was valid because it states that there is an "or" between the the "disbelief in" and "denial of" (allowing for the possibility that some ascribe to one portion of the definition while others ascribe to the second).

But I then argued (based on the definition of "deny" that the other person posted) that definition 1 is still incorrect. My response was the following:

Maverick

As I look at the OED definition of "denial", I see no problem with the way it is definied in sentences 1, 2, and 4. The third sentence is the one I take issue with.

(OED definition of "deny" quoted.)

I do not "refuse to admit the truth of" theism because I don't believe it is truth in the first place. It doesn't make logical sense for me to deny the truth of something that I don't believe is true. It's like admitting the fallacy behind something that I don't believe is fallicious.

There is a contradiction of declarations, if you will. In the first part of the sentence you are stating that you reject something and in the second part you are admitting that there is truth to what you rejected. It makes it sound as if you believe and disbelieve in a god simultaneously - which is not logically possible.

Does anyone agree/disagree with my argument?

[ck]

I read that at webster.com u look up atheist the definition is "ONe who denies the existence of god" I found that a little well pretty much what u said

[dragonfly]

Your argument is sound and clever!....however as an atheist does your definition allow for the possibility of changing your mind? I thought the word denial (although I totally agree with your interpretation of it) perhaps indicates semantically atleast a rejection of others theist beliefs and therefore leaves the possibility of accepting them open.

Personally even when I take a firm stance with a belief I like to think that I am open to change....this could be interpreted by some as a weakness.

[tamara]

So where do you put the atheist who does deny the existence of God? I thought that was the difference between weak and strong atheism? Or gnostic and agnostic atheism, as some put it.

[Maverick]

dragonfly

Your argument is sound and clever!....however as an atheist does your definition allow for the possibility of changing your mind?

Absolutely. Atheism is not a set of dotrines. Therefore, it does not demand adherence to certain unchanging beliefs.

dragonfly

I thought the word denial (although I totally agree with your interpretation of it) perhaps indicates semantically atleast a rejection of others theist beliefs and therefore leaves the possibility of accepting them open.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you trying to say that denial somehow left open the realm of possibility? Could you clarify what you mean?

dragon

Personally even when I take a firm stance with a belief I like to think that I am open to change....this could be interpreted by some as a weakness.

I don't think it is a weakness at all. I believe that being open to possibilities is a strength. Openness to possibilities other than the one you believe to be true often requires more effort on the part of the person being open-minded. It challenges us to adequately defend our views.

This is also why I consider myself to be a freethinker: someone who forms his/her own opinions about certain aspects of life without conformity to a certain established belief system.

tamara

So where do you put the atheist who does deny the existence of God?

My argument is that there is no such thing as an atheist who denies the existence of God. How can one deny something he/she doesn't believe in to begin with? Denial assumes that one is, "refusing to admit the truth of something" (the OED's definition). But the atheist doesn't believe that there is anything to deny in the first place. So how can an atheist refuse to admit the truth of something he/she doesn't believe to be true?

[AuntieSocial]

My understanding of the definition of "denial" is the same as Maverick's. i.e. non-acceptance of a truth. As I see no truth in the existence of a god (the lack of evidence speaks to the lack of being), I am not in denial.

Many theists do see us as people in denial though. I can't even count the number of times I have heard theists accuse me of "being angry at God", "not being patient enough to wait for Him to answer my prayers", or "refusing to see the evidence that is around me".

I agree with you, Maverick. The definition is flawed. I feel that this stems from the people who feel the need to define us as different, or abnormal. It was theists who coined the phrase to single the nonbelievers out. Since the theists were the ones who felt it necessary to apply such a term, they were also the ones who developed the definition(s).

There has been no need for anyone to be labelled as aleprechaun or afaery, so why must there be an atheist?

It is primarily due to the errant definitions and attributes (i.e. angry at god, etc) associated with the word atheist that I prefer the term nullifidian. Most people have not encountered the term before, so I can assert what the word means without the negative aspects that the religious would ordinarily assign.

I do consider myself an implicit atheist (and nullifidian), however. I do not disqualify the possibility that there may be a god that can be substantiated, but to date, I have seen no such evidence to support my belief in such a deity in reality.

[Anarchat]

You make assumptions about what it "means" to deny something. Supposing, for the moment, that what you've said about what it means to deny something is true for common usage. Now let's remove that word from the realm of common usage and place it in, say, the realm of logic - especially formal logic. In logic to take the denial of a proposition (say, that of believing in a God) is simply to take the opposite. So, the denial of "I believe in God" would be "I do not believe in God", "I do not have belief in a God", or "I lack belief in a God".

Looking at it in this way, it's not quite as unreasonable to define atheism as a disbelief in or denial of the existence of God" or whatever silly definition they had. At this point, however, you're going to try to find fault with my methods. This is only natural. After all, dictionaries are repositories of words and their common usage and not how they are used elsewhere, like in logic. But even then, this is where oversensitivity to nuance can slightly change the meaning of a word.

Take deny to mean "to refuse" (a common synonym) and refuse to mean "indicate unwillingness to do, accept, give, or allow". Then one could say "denial of the existence of God." is equivilent to "indicate unwillingness to accept the existence of God." I, once again, do not think this is unreasonable. Afterall, I refuse to accept the existence of God just because theists say I should, and as such I am unwilling to accept the existence of God.

I just wanted to illustrate the caveats of using a dictionary to define complex and dynamic words like atheist. Common usage illustrates this perfectly. If "denial of the existence of God" is what atheism means in common usage, meaning if that's how people use it even if etymology indicates it should be used otherwise, "denial of the existence of God" is how the word is going to be defined.

Overall you have to take definitions in the dictionary with a little grain of salt sometimes. It's a writer's resource, not a philosophical document. It's simply not sophisticated enough to encapsulate all atheists with single definition. Or multiple definitions for that matter.
Define atheism how you want and leave dictonary definitions for words like

"pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"