Elliott; lesson 3. Here is my analysis of your assertion that Atheism is a religion; I begin with a recap of your arguments. Because of the restrictions on words on the reply tabs, I have broken the lesson into 4 sections (Addenda - I did so on his blog, but this is the entire text)
P1: Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause nature and purpose of the universe
P2: Atheism is a set of beliefs stemming from 'God is not the cause nature and purpose of the universe'
T: Atheism is a religion
P1: Religion is a specific set of fundamental beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons
P2: Atheism is a specific set of fundamental beliefs and practices, stemming from the belief 'there is no God', which is agreed upon by a number of persons (other atheists)
T: Atheism is a religion
P1: Religion is a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
P2: Atheism is a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, stemming from the belief 'there is no god'
T: Atheism is a religion
You then make these two assertions:
“Atheism: The denial or disbelief that any god exists. (The BELIEF that there is no god)
Atheist: A person who freely chooses to deny or disbelieve a god exists. (A person who freely chooses to BELIEVE that NO god exists.)”
You base this on your assertion that: “… for anything you disbelieve in, you must also believe that that thing does not exist.”
First (1), I will show that your definitions of Atheism are all countered by both the same sources you cite in your exegesis regarding definitions of the word “religion”, and also by other highly credible sources. I will also show that those sources you have cited define “disbelief” in a manner which supports my assertion that your definition of the word is incorrect. I will then (2) give you a logical example of how your assertion that “… for anything you disbelieve in, you must also believe that that thing does not exist.” is a false assertion.(contd section 2)
1) I assert that all these arguments fail on P2; the assertion that Atheism is a belief or set of beliefs that “there is no God”. Atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief by definition.
a·the·ism/ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ [ey-thee-iz-uhm] (dictionary.com)
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. (this is the ONLY example in the sources you cite where Atheism is defined as a “belief”; it is contradicted immediately by the second definition.)
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
a·the·ist (
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
|
dis·be·lief (dsb-lf) n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Atheism (Merriam-Webster)
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
dis·be·lief noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief)
[noncount] : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
As you can see, the only one of your sources that agrees with your definition of Atheism is Dictionary.com, and even then only in the first instance; it actually contradicts itself in the second instance, a fact that I have pointed out to its administrators. ALL the other credible sources you cite define Atheism as a lack of positive belief in the existence of a deity, rather than a positive belief in the non-existence of a deity. I have ignored Wikipedia as it is unreliable academically and I do not understand what you mean by typing the word “into 'Google' “, as all that does is bring up a variety of sites relating to the search parameters.
Furthermore, this from Encyclopaedia Britiannica: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent… ." ("Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism.)
And this from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition.”
("Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert.The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359)
And this from the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:
"As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ...an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."
And finally, this from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.
Based on these definitions (which are written and accepted by academic philosophers worldwide), your contention that ‘Atheism is a religion’ is false. Therefore, P2 in all three arguments can be shown to be untrue; ergo, Atheism is not a “belief” in the non-existence of God/gods but a specific lack of belief – a disbelief – in the existence of a deity. You are an atheist with respect to all other gods besides the one you believe in and I challenge you to prove otherwise. By showing that P2 is untrue, the arguments are rendered unsound.
If you wish to continue to assert that Atheism is a religion, you will have to show (not simply assert without proof) that all of the above publications and institutions are wrong in their definition of Atheism. Good luck with that.
2) Logically speaking, mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition cannot be treated as equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. For example, do you believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt? To put the question more technically, do you believe the proposition "Peter is wearing a yellow shirt at this moment" is true? It's a simple question where the meanings of all the terms are relatively straightforward, so there shouldn't be any issue with comprehension. There are lots of people wearing yellow shirts every day, so there is no issue with logical or physical impossibility.
However, you really have no way of knowing what I am wearing right now. I might not even be wearing a shirt, never mind a yellow one. There's just no reasonable basis for you to believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt. You can believe that it's possible that I'm wearing a yellow shirt, and you might reasonably believe that I sometimes wear a yellow shirt, but you shouldn't believe that I am wearing one right now. You also know that I dislike the colour yellow.
By the same token, though, you also shouldn't believe that the proposition "Peter is wearing a yellow shirt" is false. Your ignorance of what I am wearing should prevent you from denying this proposition the same way it prevents you from affirming it. As you can see, not believing that this proposition is true isn't the same as believing the proposition is not true: not affirming that I am wearing a yellow shirt doesn't entail denying that I am wearing a yellow shirt. (adapted from Austin Cline, http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/DisbeliefDenial.htm).
As I have now provided you with a logical example of how a lack of belief in something does not entail a positive belief in its antithesis – in other words, proof that disbelief in the existence of God is NOT the same a believing God does not exist – I assume you will honour your pledge – “I will take this entire post down if someone can provide me an example to the contrary” – and take down this page, although, frankly, I don’t credit you with the intellectual honesty to do so.
Furthermore, I’m STILL waiting for your response to my challenge to a debate on debate.org, and for you to present your Elliott Argument (or any of your arguments for that matter) to philpapers.org. I won’t be holding my breath, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment