What really struck me was the shift that some atheists have made away from the traditional definition of atheism. It used to be that atheism was defined as the belief that there was no God, and agnosticism expressed a softer view. Some people have suggested that this definition has been abandoned because atheists kept getting pounded in debates where they had the (somewhat intolerable) burden of defending the indefensible.
Alan (and his team) define atheism not as the belief that there are no gods, but 'having no belief in god.' This, they insist, is a null hypothesis, and therefore must be assumed as the default position for all humankind. In other words, whereas once atheists had to bear the burden of proof, it has now been dumped right back into the lap of Christians (and theists in general). This may just be a bit of cosmic karma for Christians.
Of course, there are problems with this approach. Null hypotheses are generally something you choose to work with for statistical reasons, rather than have forced upon you. And, of course, theists can do the same thing. Atheists, for example, believe that religion is a natural phenomenon. Theists could pose the null hypothesis, 'religion has nothing to do with natural phenomenon' and demand that this be disproven. None of this rhetorical sleight of hand makes for engaging discussion, of course.
Most of all, it means that some atheists wander around claiming that the statement 'I have no belief in God' is logically equivalent to 'I have no beliefs about God'. This is, of course, simply not true. Let's take the example of fairies. I can say: there is no evidence for fairies. Therefore, I have no belief in fairies. However, this isn't the same as saying: 'I have no beliefs about fairies.' I do, in fact, have a belief about fairies. I have a psychological commitment to the idea that they do not exist.
Now, I don't doubt that atheists have more to say on this topic. I've asked Alan to consider forming a joint blog with me to allow discussion of this and other issues to see where it takes us. Stay tuned.
4 comments:
That's a very helpful distinction (belief in vs beliefs about).
How dissatisfied were you at the end? (I am assuming that everyone is always going to be dissatisfied with themselves at the end of a debate)
Hi,
I did enjoy the debate! Atheists do have different positions about the god(s). You might want to google "weak and strong atheism". Many atheists know the God of the Bible does not exist, but are agnostic about deistic god concept...
Perhaps I have misunderstood/oversimplified this - but is what you're saying is that when an Atheist claims "No belief system is the default position of mankind" then the natural response is "Deism is the apparent default position of mandkind."
So instead of the old debate of "Prove he does exist" vs "Prove he doesn't" you now have "Deism is a construct, prove me wrong" vs "Atheism is a construct, prove me wrong".
Interested to hear your thoughts.
Many atheists know the God of the Bible does not exist, but are agnostic about deistic god concept...
I would kind of think that those type of atheists exist purely to target Christianity and not other religions, as I think they lack the courage to stand against them. They would only pick the 'soft' targets - the Christians.
Post a Comment