ProTheism

A few months ago a friend emailed me a clever collection of terms he previously retrieved from a message board called “The Believer’s Dictionary.” The list of terms and descriptions are both amusing and sobering. The dictionary provides an overwhelming sense of familiarity when conversing with skeptics. Anyone who has spent a diminutive amount of time dialoging with petulant internet atheologians will immediately appreciate The Believer's Dictionary. I tried to track down the source of this with no avail. I have a suspicion it’s from a Muslim message board due to some specific annotations; however, I am unsure. Regardless, the material is a *must* read! If anyone knows the source, or is able to track it down, please let me know—I would like to provide a link to the original source if I can.

---

I enjoy reading from The Skeptic’s Dictionary: it’s a useful resource for learning about common nonsense (for example, who first spoke of the imaginary “gray men” aliens, these having been similar to the aliens on an episode of The Outer Limits which had recently aired). All the same, though, I have some bones to pick—more with trendy pseudo-intellectual sorts of skeptics in general than with the Dictionary itself, so I thought I’d list them here as my own dictionary about the common pitfalls of skepticism. So far I have twenty-four entries; with time I may add more. So without further ado, here is The Believer’s Dictionary!

“Ancient = stupid” fallacy: The skeptics’ own version of Erich von Daniken’s famous arguments in favor of the existence UFOs. The absurd misinterpretations and reinterpretations of myths coming invariably from art (poetry, murals, songs, statues, etc.)—which is by definition a nonliteral medium—as being necessarily entirely literal when regarding ancient religions even though modern art is not the same way. This is used as fodder for stereotypes about religion as a universally mythical thing that always ends up getting “explained” by science. (See also THE OL’ SWITCHEROO.) This results in the very most insulting false depictions of ancient people as being dumber than modern people (not more unlearned: dumber)—somehow capable of believing, for example, that lightning is literally the scepter of a god even though it looks nothing remotely like a scepter and sometimes strikes in more than one place at once, or that a chariot literally pulls the sun even though one can never be seen.

Atheist’s catch-22: The tendency of many atheists to adhere to a stereotype about atheists in response to that same stereotype. This stereotype is that they’re all morally wretched: they get so angry about this that they resort to crude, childish, spiteful attitudes in response, often to the point of mockery (a massively popular hallmark of skepticism), and in doing so become morally wretched, and as such by attacking the stereotype they end up feeding it.

“Break it, don’t buy it” fallacy: The specific type of ad hominem attack countless millions of skeptics use as a reason to reject religion, that the atrocities, terrorism, crusades, etc. caused by breaking the rules of numerous religions somehow discredits the value or believability of the religions themselves. (You’d think that if anything, that would indicate the opposite.) This makes about as much sense as rejecting the Bill of Rights because of the Patriot Act that defies them in the name of the same country.

Coincidence-clustering bifurcation: The double standard many skeptics hold wherein if something extraordinary happens once or twice then it’s just a fluke, whereas if extraordinary things happens frequently then it’s due to the mathematical principle known as clustering. In other words, nothing can ever convince these skeptics since every possible situation is seen through its own respective presumption. They’ve left no way for anything ever to convince them that they’re wrong. When believers do this it’s called closed-minded blind faith; when skeptics do the same thing here it’s just seeing things scientifically. How about that? See also SCARBOROUGH EFFECT.

Consciousness: To the average non-soulist, somehow the same thing as the soul or equivalent to it in some way. They see consciousness as defining our being ourselves, our being “in there”, so to speak. For some strange reason it never occurs to them that people are themselves, fully “in there”, when dreaming, and we dream while we’re unconscious. Therefore the self and consciousness can’t be the same thing entirely—when we dream we’d be having a self while having no self. See also SELF.

The Ever-shifting Burden of Proof: The mysteriously changeful criterion for who should have the burden of proof in any discussion between skeptics and believers (for example, over the issue of God’s existence)—now it’s the person *introducing* the claim who has the burden of proof, now the person with the *extraordinary* claim, now the person with the *positive* claim—whatever is most convenient for the skeptic at the particular moment.

Freethinker: An irreligious atheist—after all, we open-minded people all know that no one who disagrees with you can possibly be capable of thinking freely.

God: To a skeptic, the word “God” means “whatever particular theory of what God happens to be like (not who He is) according to the prevailing, orthodox, mainstream ideas where the skeptic lives”. This is why “incompatible properties” arguments for God’s nonexistence never involve merely the basic denotation of “creator and ruler of the universe” that you’ll find in any dictionary (usually in those exact words), and also why so many atheists (many of them intelligent people with English as a first language) claim to disbelieve in God because the word doesn’t really mean anything.

Great Lie of Skepticism: “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Few die hard skeptics who ever say this and then see what seems to be a ghost/angel/whatever are likely to actually change their mind like they more or less promised they would. They’ll just keep on denying, saying that they were hallucinating, dreaming, having their senses play tricks on them, etc. Now of course they may very well be completely correct about that, but my point is not the accuracy or inaccuracy of such a conclusion but the dishonest, closed-minded double standard involved.

Identity crisis: The confusion materialists (in the philosophical sense of the word “materialism”) always make between what something is made of, or how it works, and what it *is*. Without this confusion, materialism probably wouldn’t even be a possible belief.

“Knowledge is power” fallacy: Perhaps the single most irrational argument in the history of human beings, the idea that God either doesn’t exist or isn’t good because He knows what’s going to happen before it happens and therefore nobody is free to do anything else. Why should foreknowledge of another person’s choice (assuming that God goes from one moment to the next along with us in the first place, which is improbable) cancel its being a choice at all? Foreknowledge does not equal causation. We know that the people around us are going to die someday: that does not make us murderers. If we went back in time and watched Lincoln give the Gettysburg address, it would not qualify us as his speechwriters. We all know that the sun will rise tomorrow: that does not mean we’re making it happen. How do intelligent people ever fall into this nonsense?! But then there I go, sounding like a skeptic.

“Lack of belief”: An almost comically nonsensical and incoherent phrase used by many atheists as a redefinition of atheism for their own convenient purposes. Flies in the face of every English dictionary ever printed in the history of planet earth. Is never explained precisely, but apparently refers to nonbelief as opposed to disbelief. For example, the atheists ask, wouldn’t someone who’s never heard of God be an atheist? The answer is clearly and undeniably “no”, since the official definition of “atheism”, used universally by all but these select few atheists (even by most other atheists, from what I understand) is someone who has heard of God and disbelieves in Him. “So what do you call people who have never heard of God?” the label-obsessed people ask? Call me crazy, but how about “people who have never heard of God”?

Mind-reading contradiction: The idea that skeptics hold who profess disbelieve in mind-reading yet nevertheless are themselves capable of reading the minds of believers, knowing impossibly all the supposedly psychological reasons for our belief even if they don’t know us at all. The way I see it: either mind-reading is possible, or it isn’t. If it is, I see no reason why prejudiced pseudo-Freudian skeptics should have a monopoly on it.

Mythicism: The disbelief that Jesus (P) never existed, invariably based on the supposed lack of definitive historical evidence for his existence. The problem here is that history up until the invention of recording devices in the nineteenth century is a huge heap of guesswork for modern people, and so very little of it (if anything) can really be known with a tenth the surety everyone blindly assumes exists. Were the mythicists consistent with their logic, they would disbelieve not only in the existence of Jesus (P) but also about half of the people they ever heard about in history class from grade school through college.

Obsolete: In reference to arguments for God’s existence, this means “rebutted at any time by any disbeliever at any point in history, however poorly, illogically or incompletely”. You can imagine how angry the skeptics would get if we believers flipped it around and said the same thing in reference to their own arguments.

The Old Switcheroo: Replacing the ancient meaningless labels like “the action of spirits” which once “explained” why the universe works the way it is with more modern meaningless labels like “the forces of nature” and saying that we’ve now “explained” what people previously thought was something else. One may as well take something people once “explained” by dubbing it ickywicky and “explain” it by calling it glooberflek instead.

Organized religion: Bizarre redundancy used with enormous frequency by skeptics despite the fact that, just by definition, there could never possibly be any such thing as a disorganized religion.

Razor reverence: Blind, more or less religious faith in Occam’s Razor, a general rule that works best as a last resort rather than what many skeptics think it is, which is a near-absolute rule almost along the lines of a law of nature. One more excuse for not having to accept the complexity of life, perhaps: people of all stripes seem to have a problem with that.

Religion: As skeptics define it: “Whatever religion is the prevailing one where the skeptic speaking lives, because of course no other religions exist in the world”. Western skeptical writers judge all religions by Christianity; those in Islamic countries regard Islam as if its beliefs are the same as all religious beliefs; and so on. Prime examples of this nonsense are H.P. Lovecraft’s charge that his problem with “religion” is the idea of a God of everything caring enough about a cosmic flyspeck to send His only son to redeem it (for as we all know, every religion throughout history has taught just that) and Richard Carrier by his own confession declaring, “Yep, I’m an atheist,” after finishing the Bible (for as we all know, it’s impossible to believe in God without believing in the Bible).

Santa lag: The feeling of weariness and vague nausea a theist gets after approximately the 9,000th time hearing an atheist who thinks he’s real cute compare the existence of God to the existence of Santa Claus—an analogy that’s as inaccurate as it is insulting, since Santa Claus is a deliberate lie which the people teaching it never believe in.

Scarborough Effect: Believing that God/the afterlife/ghosts/entrail reading/whatever aren’t real because there is no scientific evidence for their existence. Since these things are by definition supernatural and therefore outside what science can detect, what this attitude boils down to is, “Because there is no scientific evidence for its existence, we disbelieve in this thing that could never yield scientific evidence even if it were to exist since it is supposed to be outside the parameters of science.” One may as well conclude that Mexico City doesn’t exist because one can’t find it anywhere in Australia. I named this principle after the song “Are You Going to Scarborough Fair?” in which a series of impossible-to-meet criteria are given as the only way for the narrator of the song to be persuaded of something. See also COINCIDENCE-CLUSTERING BIFURCATION.

Scarecrow Syndrome: The stereotype many skeptics hold that no other reasons (even incorrect ones) for religious belief of any kind, or even belief in the existence of God, are possible except intuitive or emotional ones. Apparently we believers are incapable even of false logic; nothing could ever motivate us but our hearts. Similar to the belief many Bible-bangers have that no one can reject Christianity for any reason except some wicked, selfish desire as opposed to disagreement that the religion’s doctrines appear to be true or even believable. I named this principle so not only because of the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz who had a heart but no brain, but also because the syndrome I’m speaking of here is a form of “straw man” argument. See also MIND-READING CONTRADICTION.

Self: To most non-soulists, the same thing as self-awareness. Since when does someone have to be aware of something in order for it to exist?? See also CONSCIOUSNESS.

Superstition: To a skeptic, any belief in anything whatsoever that’s supernatural or paranormal, however ill fitting a label “superstition” may be to the belief in question even from a disbelieving point of view for anyone who knows what the word “superstition” means.

Labels: Atheism, Atheology, Skepticism

Not only do we only know God through Jesus Christ, but we only know ourselves through Jesus Christ; we only know life and death through Jesus Christ. Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot know the meaning of our life or our death, of God or of ourselves. Thus without Scripture, whose only object is Christ, we know nothing and can see nothing but obscurity and confusion in the nature of God and in nature itself (Pensees, 417).

If we’re convinced that we are just matter in motion, one physical compilation of meat trapped in a bag thickly coated in various skin types, arisen from miraculous spontaneity of happenstance—what meaning can there be outside of utter nihilism?

Under self reflection, there is this ineffable sense of meaning, purpose and reason why we are here. Is this sense a byproduct of delusion? Are all things in vain? “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Or can there really be meaning when God is not in the equation? This is a very difficult and disquieting question if it’s taken seriously.

The question at hand is not something to take lightly, nor are the conclusions inconsequential. One must take an honest look at their own worldview and take it to its logical conclusion. Does a naturalistic worldview provide meaning? Some argue that God is not required for meaning. However, can they provide a satisfactory answer, or are they deceiving themselves? William Vallicella articulates the road to self-deception and nihilism as follows:

If death is the utter annihilation of the individual person, then life is ultimately senseless and ultimately hopeless. This cannot be evaded by saying that one's life can acquire meaning if it is placed in the service of the lives of others. For their lives too (and the lives of their progeny and their progeny's progeny ad indefinitum) are, on the annihilationist assumption, ultimately senseless and hopeless. Human life is in every case the life of an individual; so even if human beings existed at all times, that would do nothing to insure ultimate meaningfulness.

Of course, there are proximate meanings, hopes, and purposes even if ultimately it is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." One can lose oneself in them. But to do so involves self-deception: one has to mistake the proximate for the ultimate. One has to burden fleeting concerns with a meaning they cannot bear. One has to fool oneself.

For example, one has to fool oneself that writing a book, starting a company, founding a family are all ultimately meaningful when the only way they could have any ultimate meaning is if they were part of a life that had a direction that wasn't about to be cut short in a few years.

To put it bluntly, we have no future if naturalism is true. But we cannot live without meaning. An existential trilemma looms. Either we cultivate self-deception by ascribing to fleeting concerns ultimate meaning, or we recognize their transiency and ultimate meaninglessness when considered in and of themselves and put our faith and hope in a transcendent meaning, or, avoiding both self-deception and the life of faith, we embrace nihilism.

Or consider the white flag swayed by Quentin Smith at the end of his article Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism:

I do not believe my theory differs very much from that of many or most people. There is a sense that my life, actions and consequences of actions amount to nothing when I am considering the value of an infinite universe. Our emotional responses to acts or states of affairs we believe have positive or negative value occur when we are narrowly focused on “the here and now”, on the people we interact with or know about, ourselves, and the animals, plants and material things that surround us in our daily lives. In our daily lives, we believe actions are good or bad and that individuals have rights. These beliefs are false, but we know this only on the occasions when we engage in second order beliefs about our everyday beliefs and view our everyday beliefs from the perspective of infinity. Most of the time, we live in an illusion of meaningfulness and only sometimes, when we are philosophically reflective, are we aware of reality and the meaninglessness of our lives. It seems obvious that this has a genetic basis, due to Darwinian laws of evolution. In order to survive and reproduce, it must seem to us most of the time that our actions are not futile, that people have rights. The rare occasions in which we know the truth about life are genetically prevented from overriding living our daily lives with the illusion that they are meaningful. As I progress through this paper, I have the illusion that my efforts are not utterly futile, but right now, as I stop and reflect, I realize that any further effort put into this paper is a futile expenditure of my energy.

Even Bertrand Russell could not avoid his own brutal conclusion:

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

All this is rather depressing, but a gloomy and dismal existence doesn’t falsify naturalism. The naturalist, however, is forced to take a short view of meaning in order to escape the imprisonment of these dreaded implications. Finding meaning becomes the here and now; it’s the plate in front of me; and the burial of ultimate hope. Even if the naturalist is right, what does it matter? What does it matter to me if the species survives? What does it matter to me that others starve? What does it matter to me that he or she is raped? What does it matter to me if the sky falls? What does it matter to that bodies burn? What does it matter to me that possessions are stolen? What does it matter to me that laws are broken? What does it matter to me that I am right and you are wrong?

Why should I not just “get mine?” And why do I care about anyone else who gets trampled along the way? Is there anything outside of subjectivity or nihilism that I can appeal to? Can blind processes fool me into thinking that it matters?

It seems to me then, that there is no satisfaction to be found in annihilation and a naturalistic worldview leads to meaninglessness and despair. We desperately cling to this rock we call earth as it swiftly rotates around our insignificant sun that is barely a speck of dust in the universe. We hold on as if something is awaiting, but we will fade away and the universe shall never notice. We can sink our fingers into society and make it a better place before we turn to dust, but as our carcasses disintegrate, society will perish as well. When the cycle of nature destroys all, it won’t matter if you cared for people or ate them; the universe could care less.

Finding meaning in a framework of blind causes is self delusion. And those who blindly clench their eyes closed and hold on to purpose are disconnected to the reality of their beliefs. William Lane Craig frames the inconsistency as follows:

First, the area of meaning. We saw that without God, life has no meaning. Yet philosophers continue to live as though life does have meaning. For example, Sartre argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action. Sartre himself chose Marxism.

Now this is utterly inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say life is objectively absurd and then to say one may create meaning for his life. If life is really absurd, then man is trapped in the lower story. To try to create meaning in life represents a leap to the upper story. But Sartre has no basis for this leap. Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sartre’s program is actually an exercise in self-delusion. For the universe does not really acquire meaning just because I give it one. This is easy to see: for suppose I give the universe one meaning, and you give it another. Who is right? The answer, of course, is neither one. For the universe without God remains objectively meaningless, no matter how we regard it. Sartre is really saying, “Let’s pretend the universe has meaning.” And this is just fooling ourselves.

The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent–for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.

I often wonder why some affirm the dogmatism of materialism, and then act as if there is some ultimate justice, as if they themselves had a right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. The universe does not offer this. There is no contract, there is no guidance; only material on a path to destruction.

However, even though the universe does not know you; God does. What we do in our lives today has an eternal effect. There is such a thing as meaning in life; that ineffable sense of meaning, purpose and reason why we are here, was written on your heart by God (Rom. 2: 15). For if there were nothing lasting longer than you; then meaning would not follow you.

It comes down to a choice in true Pascallian fashion: one can embrace the inevitable outcome of their worldview—despair, or we can follow that innate desire within ourselves that only God can satisfy.

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." — C.S. Lewis

Labels: Atheism, Meaning, Morality, Nihilism, Self-Deception Philosophy

For whatever reason, some people are ‘hell bent’ on creating this false tension between what they call “religion” and science. Take this video for example:

Here is my observation:

• From the outset, the speaker already disclosed his “dislike” of all religions. One can only guess where his conclusions follow.

• The speaker never defines what he means by “religion.” He seems to want to muddle up all religions into one class of bogus beliefs. This, however, is problematic, since diverse religions approach science differently.

• The speaker asserts that science and religion are not compatible. What are his reasons, you ask? See bellow:

• The speaker states that the problem is that “People don’t understand what science is.” He goes on to enlighten us of what science “really” is (and all this time I thought I knew!). The speaker states: “The point of science is really that we can never know absolute truth.” A couple problems (a) This is a self refuting statement. Is it absolutely true that science is really that we can never know absolute truth? (b) That’s not what science intends to do. To the contrary, science helps us to understand reality and how things work in the world, and the universe. Moreover, science rests on the presupposition that there is truth and that their conclusions are reliable.

• The speaker states that we can never say that “This is correct.” However, he is stating that he is correct is concluding that science and religion are irreconcilable. Thus, his whole polemic on the incompatibility of science and religion falls apart based on his denial on truth. In making his point about us not being able to state “this is correct”; then we can’t state it’s correct that science and religion are incompatible. In making his point, he refutes himself.

• He does make a good point about science consistently correcting itself. However, we don’t have to worry about how gravity may all be wrong. Just because some theories are later corrected, it doesn’t follow that all scientific theories are wrong or will change. To the contrary, science is becoming more precise, even though it’s still self correcting today. Many of the today’s theories are reaffirming yesterday’s hypotheses, rather than overturning them. Though, there are several today, that may be corrected in the future.

• Following his polemic, he goes on to state that science can disprove religion conclusively (go figure), but the religious people will believe anyway! So as we see, first he asserts that (a) science shows us we can’t know truth (b) science is constantly changing and we can’t be sure about everything; however, when it comes to religion, (c) he says that science can show it to be “conclusively” wrong. I will give him the Twinkie defense if he wants it.

• His conclusion: Science and Religion are incompatible because Religion holds that there are absolutes truths vs, Science which demonstrates that there is no absolute truth. And that is the absolute truth! Again, this is self refuting. Nevertheless, it was interesting.

• On the last note, I want to state that there is no controversy of Science vs. Religion (that’s and ‘apples vs. oranges’ scenario). This is a false dilemma. If there is a conflict, it’s Science vs. Science. When it comes to Christianity, the Bible teaches how to get to the heavens, but not how the heavens go (Galileo). There is often a sub-par conflict artificially fashioned between the Bible and Science, but if there is any tension, it’s between science and theology. There is a big difference.

One thing the guy has going for himself is some cool hair and an accent to go with it. Nevertheless, he needs to ascertain what he is stating without chopping his own head off.

Labels: Apologetics, Atheism

Introduction

Atheists differ in many ways. To attempt to say that atheists believe “X” is most likely painting with a wide brush. We often try to put the atheist into a conforming box that may not comport with their specific presuppositions. Moreover, atheist may argue differently on subjects like morality, logic and other things that ground their unbelief. However, being an ‘atheist’ means a certain thing—namely that they deny the existence of God or gods.

Often, when I engage an atheist concerning God’s existence, I am often told that the person making the claim bares the burden of proof. However, what the atheist fails to realize is that we are both making a claim on the subject. The Christian claim is (1) God exists and the Atheist claim is (2) God does not exist; thus, both the atheist and theist hold a position on the proposition of God’s existence. Therefore, each side of the debate shoulders a burden for their own position and does not exclusively rest on one side.

There is a primary tactic that the atheist may try to avert their side of the burden. Primarily, they redefine the term “atheism” to “no belief” in God. In this post, I will demonstrate the classical definition of “Atheism” and how the evasion to shoulder their burden is fallacious.

‘Atheism’ as the “absence of belief” in God

Many atheists are stating that they “lack a belief in God” or have an “absence of belief in God” or they state that they have “no belief in God”, or they state that they are ‘without a belief in God”. In fact, it’s becoming more popular the more it’s tossed out. No thanks to Gordon Stein, he states the position as follows (emphasis mine):

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God. [Gordon Stein (Ed.), "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism," p. 3. Prometheus, 1980.]

Definition Problems

The “lack of belief” definition of atheism is a problematic definition for several reasons. You will not find this definition of atheism (at least now) in any reputable dictionary. The lack of belief definition is far too broad in scope. A “lack of belief” (arguably) can be attributed to agnostics, babies, aardvarks, goldfish (name your animal/pet) and perhaps even rocks. Come to think of it, my old shoe on the patio has a “lack of belief” in God. Besides, none of those would identify as an ‘atheist’ [—though my shoe is not talking to me right now (I’ll update)]. You see, the “lack of belief[ism]” brush is far too wide.

Even if the “lack of belief” definition was adopted, who would know what someone meant when they said they were an atheist? One wouldn’t be able to tell if they never thought of the proposition “God does [or does not] exist” or if they were undecided on God’s existence, or if they thought God’s existence cannot be known, or affirmed that God does not exists. Hence, the “lack of belief” definition is entirely inadequate in identifying what the hell an ‘atheist’ is.

Grammatical Efficacy

Another deficiency with a “lack of belief in God” is the grammatical structure. What you find is that atheists who abide in “lack of belief” are simply *shifting the location of the negative* in this sentence. So, the atheist is basically stating that they *don’t believe* in the existence of God—thus, they still have a *negative* within the statement. (See Kenneth G. Wilson’s demonstration of the grammatical shift of the negative in The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Under the explanation of “raising.”

One can demonstrate that the change in definition still does succeed in averting a *position.* For example, take a look at the following examples:

(i) “I don’t believe my wife is at work” is equivalent to “I believe my wife is not at work.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about my wife being at work.

(ii) “I don’t believe they made reservations for dinner” is equivalent to “I believe they did not make reservations for dinner.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about their reservations for dinner.

(iii) “I don’t believe he ran the entire way home from practice” is equivalent to “I believe he did not run the entire way home from practice.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about him running home from practice

(iv) “I don’t believe ‘atheist’ means ‘lack of belief’” is equivalent to “I believe ‘atheist does not mean lack of belief.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about atheists ‘lack of belief’

(v) “I don’t believe in the existence of God” is equivalent to “I believe that God does not exist.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about the existence of God.

As demonstrated, ‘Atheists’ are not approaching this issue with a blank slate, they come to the table *with a belief* about the existence of God—not the lack of one. Stating that they “lack belief in God” will not avert their own standpoint on God’s existence. They have a belief about the proposition of God’s existence; if they had “no belief” they wouldn’t self identify as “atheists.”

What’s interesting, is that you will even find the lack of belief definition and etymology on wikipedia and answers.com (but if answers.com [which usually just uploads wiki] says it--it *must* be true, right?—wrong and wrong again). Wikipedia and answers.com are good resources, but they both have their limitations and set backs. Before I examine the etymology of ‘Atheism,’ lets take a look at how *reputable* dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term.

Classical ‘Atheism’

Despite the popularity of a “lack of belief” definition for atheism, there is a more formidably understood and classic definition of Atheism—one that is held by the majority of the population. Atheism is the: “belief that there is no God.” You will find this definition in the following dictionaries and encyclopedias:

• Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
• Etymological Dictionary of English Language
• The Academic American Encyclopedia
• Random House Encyclopedia
• Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
• Oxford Companion to Philosophy
• The World Book Encyclopedia
• Encyclopedia Americana
• The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Encyclopedia of Religion
• The Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia.

To illustrate some online examples as well:

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states that Atheism: “means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

• The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary states that an Atheist is: “someone who believes that God or gods do not exist.” And an Agnostic is: “someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists”

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states that an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.” And Atheism is: “Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods…”

• The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition states that Atheism is: “denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O’Hair.”

• Merriam-Webster Online states that an Atheist is: “one who believes that there is no deity.” And Atheism is: “a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity.” And Disbelief as: “the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”

• 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary states an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being” And Atheism as: “The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being”

• Dictionary.com states that Atheism is: 1“Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.” And an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.” And Disbelief as: “Refusal or reluctance to believe.”

As it can be seen, the classic understanding of “Atheism” and Atheist” is a denial that God exists—Not a “lack of belief” in God.

Etymology

Atheists like Stein and much of the online community also like to argue the etymology of “atheism”. What’s stated, roughly, is that ‘a’ means ‘without’. By attaching ‘a’ to ‘theism’; one is ‘without-theism.’ After arguing this position, then, an ‘atheist’ is just someone who is ‘with the absence of theism.’ Another prominent atheist, George Smith makes the same argument in Atheism: The Case Against God, when he writes, ". . . the term 'a-theism' literally means 'without theism,' or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief . . . If we use the phrase 'belief-in-god' as a substitute for theism; we see that its negation is 'no-belief-in-god.'"

From the Online Etymology Dictionary, ‘a’ is: “prefix meaning "not," from Gk. a-, an- "not," from PIE base *ne "not" (see un-).” In addition, ‘no-gods,’ or ‘godless’ is the more logical outworking of the etymology of atheist/atheism. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

Atheist Theodore Drange, in his article, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism, describes the problems of the alleged “without” etymology of ‘atheism.’

Sometimes the use of the term "atheism" to mean "lack of theistic belief" is supported by an appeal to etymology. For example, Martin, in [Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.], says the following:

"In Greek a' means without' or not' and theos' means god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.[4]"

This argument is rather unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. First, it is not completely clear that the correct translation of the Greek prefix "a" is "without." It might also mean "no," in which case "a-the-ism" could be translated as "no-god-ism," or "the view that there is no god." Note that there is no "ism" in Greek. Second, even if the etymology of the word "atheism" did indicate that it once meant "without belief in God," that is still not a good guide to current usage. It is quite common for words to acquire new meanings over time. It seems far more important what people mean by a word today than what it once meant long ago.

Another argument sometimes put forward is that we should ascertain what the word "atheist" means by taking a poll among atheists. But that is an unclear suggestion. How are we to decide who is an atheist (and thus to be polled) prior to ascertaining what the word "atheist" means? Let us assume that the poll is to be taken among all those native speakers of English who are not theists. It is still not clear what the result of such a poll would be. I have never seen any statistical result presented on the matter. My conclusion here is that no good case has ever been made for using the word "atheist" in the sense of "one who is without belief in God."

So again, we see that ‘atheism’ is not the absence of theism, but the denial of it.

Equivocating Definitions

In order to avert the burden of proof, some atheists have changed the definition of atheisms to a ‘lack of belief.” This attempts to put the atheist in a non-affirming position and shifts the burden *to the person making the claim.* However, as we have seen, both the atheist and theist are bringing claims to the table and each must defend those claims.

The problem with the “lack of belief” position is that it conceals the atheist’s true position. While asserting that they “lack belief”, they are truthfully holding to the classical position in their philosophy (see above). In their writings, they are demonstrating their rejection of Gods existence (sometimes dogmatically); however, when challenging their position, out comes their ‘sudden’ lack of belief on the issue. In one side of the mouth their parading their disbelief, and on the other side of their mouth their denying *any* belief. For people who are in “absence of belief in God”, they sure do have plenty of ‘opinions’ about the matter. In other words, their equivocating the two definitions of atheism to suit their purpose of evading the burden of proof. This method of argumentation is dishonest and should be pointed out.

The Logical problem of ‘Atheism”

Now that we have cut through the language game, we should note that the classical definition of atheism can put the atheist in a predicament. Some might assert that to be an atheist, you must be in the position to prove a universal negative. Now, I happen to think there is a way out for the atheist. But for dogmatic atheists who pontificate the non-existence of God (there out there), there is a logical dilemma. If all possibilities for the existence of God can be exhaustively enumerated; you can prove the universal; however, you can’t do this when dealing with the proposition of Gods existence.

The atheist then, is philosophically naïve to assume that they can disprove Gods existence. However, the atheist does not have to assert a universal negative to maintain their atheism. An atheist can maintain that while God's existence *cannot be logically or empirically disproven*, it is nevertheless *unproven.* With this qualification, the atheist is not committing a logical fallacy and still maintains their atheism. However, as we can see, the atheist as well as the theist both has a position on the proposition of Gods existence—and therefore, both shoulder the burden of proof for their position , since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this situation.

Conclusion

It’s common today to see atheists avert their own burden of proof. One tactic the atheist has done to is to re-define atheism from the “belief that there is no God” to the “lack of belief in God.” However, the re-definition of atheism is fallacious and still fails on its face to avert their burden of proof.

If the atheist says that God’s existence cannot be proven, he’s assuming that the Christian has no proof or that all his proof is wrong, which is the very thing the atheist would need to prove (and thus he’s begging the question). In addition, for the Christian theist, to deny the idea of God is to deny the actual existence of God no matter what language game you want to play. It isn’t good enough for the atheist to say that they ‘lack belief’ of God *therefore* they are denying nothing about "Gods" actual existence. By self definition (no matter how you slice it) atheists must examine all of reality (within their epistemological realm) to evaluate the concept of God. In summary, neither the atheist nor the Christian is “neutral” in their approach to the question of God’s existence.

In summary, neither the atheist nor the Christian is “neutral” in their approach to the question of God’s existence.

The question of God’s existence is not acontextual. Atheism and theism arise from alternative systems of belief. Each system of beliefs includes presuppositions about reality, knowledge, and how we live our lives. Thus, each system of belief must be argued for—no language game will change that.

Some atheists do acknowledge that both the atheist and theist bare a burden of proof when arguing the existence of God. Jeffery Jay Lowder comments in the article Is Atheism Presumptuous? A Reply to Paul Copan (2000):

In a recent article, Paul Copan challenges Flew's presumption of atheism, calling it "presumptuousness." According to Copan, "the atheist also shares the burden of proof" because "atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists")."[3] I agree with Copan that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."

Both atheist and theist have knowledge claims that must be argued for. Evading the burden of proof demonstrates the weakness of ones own position. It’s high time that atheists who ‘lack belief’ own up on their burden as well as the theist.

Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, Belief, Epistemology, Proof

Apparently, there is a double standard when it comes to justifying ones own assumptions on presuppositional matters. The Christian must give an account of all affirmations of the Christian worldview, or such assertions are deemed unfounded and are rejected as unsupported beliefs or non-rational lines of reasoning. Conversely, some atheists have excluded themselves from the burden they impose. This special pleading effect is evident in the area of foundational beliefs—such as morality, logic, reason and so on. However, when those foundational beliefs are represented as deductive premises in an argument, they should not be surprised when they are challenged on it. In fact, their case hinges on many unspoken assumptions for which they often offer no supporting argument.

I have found that some unbelievers may even become infuriated when one points out that secularism has no principled basis for morality. This is often pointed out when a non-believer, such as a secularist, uses morality (e.g. problems of ‘evil’ and ‘suffering’ etc…) to argue against Christianity. Nevertheless, rather than supporting their premise of “evil”; they assume the challenge as a type of personal affront. Responses vary from statements such as “I m a moral person” and “I don’t need a book or a ‘god’ to be moral.” Thus, rather than address the question, they regress on to an erroneous trail of personal and observational testimony. However, when I challenge an unbeliever about their moral premises, I am not judging their character, or calling into question their moral behavior; rather, I am questioning the referent they use that governs their moral system. In other words, I am questioning their own yardstick they use to determine what is-or-is-not moral.

For instance, when an atheist uses the existence of evil as an argument against Christianity, the Christian has every right to challenge the premise of their argument. Recently, I have heard an atheist state that the challenge of moral substantiation is a dishonest tactic to trap the atheist, because the theist already deduces that the atheist cannot provide a basis for morality; thus, Christianity is true by default. Yet, this is untrue—at least in my own challenges. Though I do think that secularism cannot provide a sufficient basis to support their premises and always will fall short of grounding morality in something other than oneself; the position leads to moral relativism or nihilism. However, I don’t think that qualifies the secular position as *necessarily* false. So the intent of the challenge is not to entrap per se, but to entice one to examine and substantiate their position. Thus, such arguments should be challenged until demonstrated otherwise, or is recognized to be flawed.

Though I think their argument to be flawed, I do not think it to be meaningless. Interestingly, the meaning within their argument is not recognized by the very person making the argument. In fact, the very argument counters their polemic against Christianity. From the words of C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. ... Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

So the moral argument against God and Christianity has meaning, but not with an atheistic worldview (at least not one than I have seen). The atheist must borrow the Christian worldview of morality in order to argue against the Christian worldview. Ironic.

Case In Point

The Reluctant Thinker (A.K.A. the Reluctant Atheist) has become aggravated and eager to avoid grappling with the theistic challenge of a moral framework. I want to look at his post on the subject of morality to demonstrate my point. Before I start though, the Reluctant Atheist is not a reluctant thinker because he does not think, or that he is unintelligent; he is a reluctant thinker because he is reluctant to think about where his position leads and doesn’t lead. I am sure he is an intelligent man, and many intelligent people hold the same position of morality he does—so this not to an affront on him, but an affront on his position and response to the moral challenge. Nevertheless, there are some very intelligent unbelievers who go to desperate lengths to deny the obvious or silence the opposition with backbiting refusal to engage in order to justify their unbelief.

In the beginning of his post, he states:

[S]omewhere, somewhen, there’s some unwritten rule that we atheists are required to explain how it is that we’re moral creatures, without the benefit of having transcendent guidance.

I hate this crap.

I know why this is hated, because every time this challenge is brought up—they cannot substantiate their claims of theodicy. This is basically saying “talk to the hand.” It gets old defending the indefensible I suppose. I have had this discussion with the author before. When pushed against the wall hard enough, he stated, “Truthfully, my position is ad hoc.” Yet, if a position is ad hoc, it loses its deductive power and thus does not provide adequate premises to argue in favor of theodicy.

Secondly, why is it okay for the atheist to avoid justification for their beliefs, while the theist must be substantiate their beliefs?

Continuing…

At some juncture, I just lose interest. Besides which, I think it’s a trap, a pitfall we fall into as a rule. I mean, really, why on earth do I HAVE to explain it? I don’t. I feel that I (and my fellow atheists) best exemplify by example. To wit: the large percentile of crimes committed in this (or for the most part, any other) society is committed by religious folk.

This is a reluctant thinker’s way of plugging his ears to any critique of his position on morality. He says, “why do I HAVE to explain it”; the answer is—you have to explain it when it’s a premises in your argument. If you’re going to go on the offensive, and give Christianity the finger, don’t expect a free pass. Those who state one doesn’t have to answer on this issue are usually indicating that they cannot answer it.

It would be one thing to corner someone to justify morality when they have not given an opinion on the matter; however, the rub comes in when someone uses a moral deduction to argue against Christianity. Thus, one is required (if they want to preserve the argument) to support the premises of the deduction.

Secondly, the author goes to state that “the large percentile of crimes committed in this (or for the most part, any other) society is committed by religious folk.” So what is being said is that atheists have exemplified superior morality than ‘religious folk.’ However, (1) this is an assertion not an argument (2) only gives a descriptive measure of morality (3) begs the question (4) fails to note the center of moral substantiation—that is to substantiate the prescriptive basis of such actions (5) what of the crimes committed by ‘non-religious folks’. The statement means nothing, and solves nothing without giving prescriptive justification for atheists. For if there is no prescriptive justification, then there is no condemnation of not being moral.

Natural Ethics

Continuing, we now explore the paradox of natural ethics:

Thus far, it seems I’m a moral naturalist.

“Moral naturalism is a form of cognitivism derived from applying evolutionary game-theory to ethics. Rather than interpreting morality as the result of negotiations between members of a large group of free moral agents, moral naturalism sees morality as an emergent phenomenon arising as an unintended side-effect of the interaction of those agents in smaller groups. In other words, morality is not to solve a single problem but a number of recurring problems, in the same manner that natural selection adjusts populations of organisms for changing environmental conditions. This puts moral facts in a class with natural facts about the world, which contradicts the assertion of divine command theory that morality is defined by the arbitrary revelation of God.”

I think that covers it very nicely, thanks.

It’s hard to see how giving a definition of moral naturalism provides a substantiation of morality. At best, this is just inches improved over moral relativism as it provided a more cognitive relation to reality than a reconstruction of reality. Ambiguity does not substitute well for rationality. Moral naturalism seems to affirm that moral values are (1) real, (2) an objective property of the natural (or physical) world. Thus (I presume), a moral decision is either “true” or “false”, depending on the facts of the world as it exists. The problem with this view is that the morals are not mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior.

However, moral naturalism is just another way to adopt Christian values without God. With moral naturalism there is a strong emphasis to base morality on ‘facts’. However, moral naturalist still smuggle in a moral premise, namely the principle that it is wrong to do X as a fact without a priori knowledge. To exclusively base morality on descriptive facts is to enter into a never ending circular abyss. To state that X as a fact is wrong and that X is wrong as a fact is a tautology. Having done this, to then say that “pleasure is valuable” would be to affirm a mere vacuous statement, as would “pleasure is good”

Only with moral knowledge already in place does it make sense to say that you can derive a moral conclusion from a set of facts. Hence, you have to have some standard to evaluate the facts themselves. So, moral naturalism does not answer the question of were morals come from in the first place, which is central to supporting their position.

The problem I see with naturalistic principled morality is that it makes morality arbitrary. One wonders, “Why is rape wrong?” The moral naturalist would have to say, “This tendency proved useful in the processes of natural selection.” So, it seems that rape is not *necessarily* morally wrong. I think most people find this entirely odd. Moreover, naturalistic ethics seems to fall prey to a type of genetic fallacy, in that it doesn't give a reason to believe that certain actions or things are right and wrong; rather, it purely tries to elucidate to why we have certain inclinations of morality as we understand it.

Continuing…

I personally believe that morality is an individual choice, and that one’s environment is a huge factor in that choice.

It’s difficult to put your finger on what certain people actually believe, it’s like their trying to derive some theory to explain away their a priori moral knowledge, but end up going all over the map with ‘naturalistic morals’ to ‘personal choices.’ Nevertheless, regarding morality as an individual choice, I presume without any ultimate accountability--that’s true. Considering evolutionary involvement and moral choices, Jeffery has a question for the atheist:

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’”

~ Jeffrey Dahmer

Continuing…

This isn’t to say I was ‘saintly’: most young boys engage in behavior that would be considered Sociopathic in an adult – it’s a matter of whether it’s a touch, or a wholesale wallowing that makes the distinction. I found the flavor wholly repulsive, and turned my face away from that innate darkness that humans have built into their nature. With no help from religion, I might add.

These statements sound an awful lot like the doctrine of original sin. Yet, while recognizing the “innate darkness” humans have, they venomously deny original sin. Secondly, if humans have “darkness built into their nature”, what makes that darkness wrong? Isn’t that what evolutions has brought? If we have evolved to be natural rapists what does it matter? Moreover, how does one turn their face away from something said to be “innate in humans?”

At least Richard Dawkins is honest about his worldview when he says:

There is at the bottom of it all no good, no evil, no purpose, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

So if were honest about atheism, aren’t human beings just what natural selection made us to be? Aren’t we just a higher form of animal; perhaps we are some form of killer apes manufactured by evolution?

So, in short, I’m a morally upright individual – I don’t steal, I rarely lie, I’m excruciatingly honest (to my own detriment, I might add), I understand what the word no means (I feel that rape – the ultimate conscious violation – is perhaps the most disgusting crime one being can commit on another), children absolutely adore me, domestic pets as a rule gravitate to me, I’m about as friendly as another human being can be in person, and I won’t strike another person without due provocation. I also haven’t seen the inside of a cell in approximately thirty years (one time was enough: in some things, I’m a fast learner).

Another thing we see here is the “I am a good person defense”; as if that answers the question of moral foundations. Due to natural revelation, the Image of God imprinted on people, and common grace by God, unbelievers retain a remnant of common decency. This classic response gets old, because the question is not, in the first instance, whether an unbeliever can exhibit common decency, but whether moral absolutes are consistent with, or inherent in, an atheist worldview. Saying you’re a moral person doesn’t cut the cheese.

In fact, this quote explains my sentiments well:

In America, however, most of our atheists are actually thinly disguised Christians, or sometimes thinly disguised Jews, who want to retain the humanism taught by the Creator, without believing in the Creator. They believe in the image of God, without believing in God. They want the Kingdom of God; --- compassion, justice, peace, love, integrity, honesty, and commitment; without God, the King.
-- Michael Novak

Following to the end of this post, we see that evolution is now the source of morality:

Which begs the question (for the theists): from whence came morality?

So I’ll paraphrase myself (I’m entitled to), and add to an earlier quotation of mine:

‘From the womb of evolution sprang religion. From that womb also came morality.’

Because, let’s face facts, folks: any individual of a species that behaves in a manner contrary to the well being of the herd, is cast out. I won’t trot out any scholarship in this regard: I leave it to my readers to investigate for themselves.

So morals evolve, but how would one know whether action X is more evolved than action Y? This is just another lonely assertion in search of a warm-bodied supporting argument. Here, the author is pontificating morality. He says that morals evolve, but if rape is a result of evolving genes of survival how can it be immoral? How many ways can ‘evolving morality’ be reduced to absurdity before one stops using the excuse? I am still waiting to see the secular foundation for morality…

If humans are merely complex material, molecules without purpose, if no one piece of matter is any more valuable than any other piece of matter, if we are self-governing (without God), if the circumstances warrants it, and if we can advance our own selfish interests by doing so, could we not lie, steal, maim, or murder at will? If not, why not?

Labels: Apologetics, Atheism, Atheology, Belief, Christianity, Epistemology, Morality, Nihilism, Skepticism