What is "Atheism" Anyway?

One of the most common side-tracks when speaking to a self-described "Atheist" is the question of what the word "Atheism" even means.  The exchange typically goes like this...

Theist: "Can you prove to me that God does not exist?"

Atheist: "You are so ignorant.  You don't even know what atheism is."

... and before you know it, the conversation is derailed.  It then goes down the long fruitless path of debating the meaning of a word and rather than matters of substance.

Today I want to discuss the evolution of the word "Atheist" and how one can avoid falling into this rhetorical ditch.



Definitions and Burdens:

Believers are usually accustomed to the classical definitions of “Atheist” and “Theist”.  These definitions present a very clean picture of the landscape of belief:

Theism: The belief that God exists.

Atheism:  The belief that God does not exist.

Agnostic: One who is not certain whether God exists.

Now, if you are asserting something in a discussion, you have the responsibility to provide some good evidence for that belief.  This is called the "burden of proof".  Classically both the Theist and Atheist are making assertions.  Thus, they both carry this burden.

This presents a problem for people who are antagonistic toward belief in God, want to be public about it, and yet do not want to learn lengthy defenses of classical philosophical Atheism.

On the one hand, the label “Agnostic” sounds so wishy-washy.  It evokes the image of someone who just cannot make up his mind.  It doesn’t capture depth of hostility one feels toward Theistic belief.

On the other hand, the label "Atheist" is bolder, sexier, and more rebellious.  But the burden of proof is a big pain... and then one has to answer for the philosophical worldview implications of a Godless universe.

So how does one retain the word "Atheist" without having to shoulder the burden of actually arguing for it?  Easy.  Change what the word means.


A New Framework:

Thus, the new and improved definition of Atheism becomes:

"The condition of lacking belief in God."  

This transforms Atheism so it is no longer a proposition, ideology, or belief.  Now it is something which cannot be true nor false.  It is a description of a mental state - not an assertion about reality.

In reply, many have pointed out how this definition would lead to the absurd conclusion that walruses, sea slugs, and microbes are atheists.  Thus, you may encounter a refined definition:

"The condition of lacking belief in God on the part of a rational, sentient being."

The word "Agnostic" also undergoes a radical change.  In the classical definition it was a noun describing uncertainty of God's existence.  Now it becomes an adverb which describes -how- one disbelieves in God.

The descriptor “Agnostic” is used to refer to the absence of a knowledge claim.  “Gnostic” refers to an actual claim to know God doesn’t exist.  So you get this:

Agnostic Atheist:  A person who lacks belief in God but makes no assertion regarding God's nonexistence.

Gnostic Atheist:  A person who lacks belief in God and also asserts God's nonexistence. (Creating a burden of proof)

What happens to the classical understanding of the word "Agnostic”?  It ceases to exist on any practical level.  One might say the old concept becomes inexpressible under this new linguistic paradigm.  Or perhaps you might be able to call it “classical agnosticism”.

And… wouldn’t you know it… the majority of Atheists you meet will identify themselves as “Agnostic Atheists”.  Namely, the kind which gets to challenge you while never having to defend any propositions of their own.



Better Avenues:

Engaging with someone who identifies as an “Agnostic Atheist” is particularly difficult.  How do you argue with a person who claims to have no claims?  How do you refute an ideology which claims to just be a mental state?

I have two thoughts.


Skepticism and Desire:

Here is a truism: If someone does not want to believe something, no argument will be sufficient to convince him.

Take, for instance, a Young-Earth Creationist.  You can present mountains of evidence that the Earth is old, but the fella will find ways to be skeptical of all it.

At a certain point we recognize that skepticism has become dishonest and irrational.  It becomes obvious that the the insurmountable evidentiary threshold is based on ulterior motives which have nothing to do with the evidence.
















Similarly, I have seen people deny the existence of time, moral truths, the principle of causation, human free will, and even the existence of the external world … just to avoid the conclusion of a Theistic argument.  Why?  Because of ulterior motivations.

So I want to ask something which gets directly to the heart of the matter.  Something like:

“OK, fine.  I’ll go with your definition and concede you have no burden of proof.  

Let's look at the statement; ‘God exists’.  Do you want that statement to be true or false?   That is to say, regarding the question of God's existence… what do you personally hope is the case?   

Why is that?”

Even if a person does not feel the need to explain his own lack of belief, you can at least ask about motivations.


The Hidden Assertion:

I mentioned above how the "agnostic atheist" label is more common because it supposedly makes no assertions and thus avoids the burden of proof.  Well… this attempt isn’t completely successful.  You can find a hidden assertion if you know where to look.

Ask yourself, what is the difference between a “classical agnostic” and an “agnostic atheist”?

The first person is weighing the evidence and has not settled on a position.  The second person has come to a sort of conclusion.  Namely, he has concluded there is no good reason to believe in God.

So you can ask:  

"Do you think there are any good reasons or arguments for God's existence?  No?  Why not?”

Or…

"Are you familiar with the various arguments for God's existence?  All of them?  Wow!  And what did you find wrong with them?"

This opens the door to discussing various logical arguments for the existence of God.

In any event, either of these avenues will be more fruitful than arguing endlessly about the meaning of the word "Atheist."