tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post115551702913196217..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Meaning of 'Atheist'Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1156158372609096072006-08-21T05:06:00.000-06:002006-08-21T05:06:00.000-06:00What about the origins of the word atheism? The cl...What about the origins of the word atheism? The closest meaning from the Greek origin appears to be "without theism," does it not? Just because additional meanings have been attached (i.e., active assertion that god does not exist) does not mean the definition should be expanded. <BR/><BR/>Having an accurate definition has many important implications, not the least of which is the burden of proof issue. If we define atheism as the conviction that god does not exist, we are no better off than the theist in that we are claiming something which cannot be verified.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the crux of my argument is that we need to educate people so that the a priori meaning of atheism shifts to the more accurate definition I am proposing. I hadn't really thought of it that way, but it does appear that the concept has collected inappropriate baggage.<BR/><BR/>The "common discussion" to which you refer is quite variable. I am convinced that it is not only possible but absolutely necessary for an infant to be an atheist because the theistic concept has never been encountered. Similarly, I deny that agnosticism is actually a valid position. Rather, I see it as a subcategory of atheism. <BR/><BR/>One who answers anything other than "yes" to the question "Do you believe that a god or gods exist" is without theism - an atheist.vjackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1156069267244928592006-08-20T04:21:00.000-06:002006-08-20T04:21:00.000-06:00Alonzo,I know we have disagreed on the details of ...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>I know we have disagreed on the details of a theory of ethics/morality, but on this subject I can only say I agree very much with the ideas you have expressed here, and you have expressed them very well.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, I found it a deeply satisfying read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155826636792754192006-08-17T08:57:00.000-06:002006-08-17T08:57:00.000-06:00AnonymousMy claim is also that mistakes should not...<B>Anonymous</B><BR/><BR/>My claim is also that mistakes should not be pandered to, but that those who understand 'atheist' to mean 'one who holds that the proposition 'God exists' is (almost certainly) false' are not mistaken.<BR/><BR/>It is Glesson (and Smith) who are making the mistake, and it is their mistake that I am refusing to pander to. They are making a mistake because you do not determine the meaning of a word by looking at the sum of its ancient Greek parts. You determine the meaning of a word by looking at how the intended audience would typically use the word. If your claim about what the word 'means' does not match its intended usage, then your theory of meaning is mistaken.<BR/><BR/>An examimation of how the term 'atheist' is used shows that it means -- among 99% of the people who read, speak, write, or hear the term, 'One who holds that 'God exists' is (almost certainly) false.' This theory most reliably and explains and predicts how speakers use the term.<BR/><BR/>If our civilization were destroyed, and ancient archaeologists were to rummage through our books, they would not translate the word 'atheist' to mean 'one who lacks belief in God.' They would translate the phrase to mean 'one who holds that the proposition 'God exists' is (almost certainly) false.<BR/><BR/>They would, of course, find set of writings from people who asserted this alternative meaning. Yet, they would be able to conclude that this assertion clearly contradicts how the term is actually used, thus it does not describe the actual meaning of the term.<BR/><BR/>As a writer, when I use the word 'atheist', I theorize (correctly, I assert) that the vast majority of the readers will understand the term to mean 'One who (almost certainly) believes that the proposition 'God exists' is false.' It is certainly true of my use of the term. Whether I am communicating effectively is determined by whether my word-use theories such as this are correct. If they are mistaken, people will not understand me.<BR/><BR/>So, your charge of pandering is question-begging. I am, in fact, refusing to pander to those who I think have a less accurate theory of the meaning of the word 'atheist.'Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155818692117678442006-08-17T06:44:00.000-06:002006-08-17T06:44:00.000-06:00You are wrong, Alonzo. The terms "scientific theor...You are wrong, Alonzo. The terms "scientific theory" and "theory of evolution" are not translated wrong in a manner analogous to how French words might be translated incorrectly. You would be right if I had simply used "evolution" as an example, because that's a term with a specific meaning in a sub-group like biologists but different meanings elsewhere. The terms I used have specific meanings, though, and false meanings are attributed to those terms by people who don't understand the concepts (or who are lying about them). When a person tries to discuss evolutionary theory, and defines "theory of evolution" wrong, then they are wrong. When a person tries to discuss atheists, and defines "atheism" wrong, then they are wrong.<BR/><BR/>The "distinctions" you list, for example, do describe how many people see the terms - and they also reveal that many people fail to understand that knowledge and belief are not mutually exclusive things. Thank you, then, for making my point: people can be objectively mistaken in what "pops" into their minds in connection with certain terms. It is my position that such mistakes should not be pandered to - they should be corrected. It would be foolish, as Dave says, not to keep such errors in mind, but it's equally foolish to just ignore the fact that they are errors and not make corrections.<BR/><BR/>Your position appears to be one to pander to others by simply using whatever "definition" you think they are using rather than what is actually correct in the relevant context. Knowingly perpetuating and encouraging error strikes me as morally wrong as stating a deliberate falsehood.<BR/><BR/>By the way, if you look at infidels.com, they cite dictionaries which make room for atheism to be defined as not having a belief in gods.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155737990226492872006-08-16T08:19:00.000-06:002006-08-16T08:19:00.000-06:00Thanks Alonzo. I will direct people to your site ...Thanks Alonzo. I will direct people to your site who also ignorantly confuse "atheist" with "hate monger".Darhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534302098399264608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155653943454325942006-08-15T08:59:00.000-06:002006-08-15T08:59:00.000-06:00If I use the phrase, "Jim's car," and the idea tha...If I use the phrase, "Jim's car," and the idea that comes to your mind is a candy-apple red mustang convertible, this does not imply that Jim's car is a candy-apple red mustang convertible. But, then, "candy-apple red mustang convertible" is not what the phrase 'Jim's car" means. It means, "That car which Jim owns," which may or may not be a candy-apple red mustang convertible.<BR/><BR/>This distinction calls upon the distinction between <I>a priori</I> and <I>a posteriori</I> truth -- which, I admit, I did not use in the article, because I did not want to write a 20,000 word essay. (My postings are too long as is.)<BR/><BR/>However, since you brought it up, meaning (or <I>a priori</I> truth) is what necessarily comes to mind when using a term, where as <I>a posteriori</I> truth is that which is only contingently connected to the term. Everybody recognizes that the "Jim's car" can also refer to a blue and white 1967 Chevy pickup. The candy-apple red mustang convertible is only contingently connected to Jim's car.<BR/><BR/>Wrongness is necessarily associated with murder. Murder means 'morally unjustified intentional killing.' Killing in self-defense is not murder. On the other hand, wrongness is only contingently associated with homosexual acts. An sex act would not cease to become a homosexual act if it were not wrong in the way that a killing would cease to be murder if it were not wrong.<BR/><BR/>With the term 'atheist' in common discussion, it is thought impossible for an infant to be an atheist in the same way that it is impossible for a justified killing to be murder. The capacity to attribute a possibility of being true to the proposition "god exists" is a necessary part of its meaning (the word does not apply to entities that lack this capacity). Those at or near 0% probability of being true are atheists. Those at or near 100% chance of its being true are theists. Those in between are categorized as various levels of agnosticism.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155650530454661472006-08-15T08:02:00.000-06:002006-08-15T08:02:00.000-06:00No, but it would mean that if you know that's how ...No, but it would mean that if you know that's how someone understands "homosexual" then to use the word without taking that interpretation into account would be foolish at best.<BR/><BR/>Another way of putting it is that language at one level is <B>prescriptive</B> -- we teach kids what concrete items associate with what basic words, like, "green," "ball," "three" -- but, the further we get from basic and concrete terms, the more language becomes <B>descriptive</B> -- it represents a consensus of what that word refers to, not a hard rule that can be dictated from a dictionary. Dictionaries, in fact, change with usage more than usage changes with dictionaries.***Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619750729726616568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155641892629374542006-08-15T05:38:00.000-06:002006-08-15T05:38:00.000-06:00We're going to have to agree to disagree on this o...We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My position can be found <A HREF="http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2006/08/reclaiming-atheism-for-atheists.html" REL="nofollow">here </A>.<BR/><BR/>"In other words, the 'correct' definition of a word is the prediction of what thoughts pop into the mind of the reader or listener when they encounter the word."<BR/><BR/>What implications might this statement have for definitions involving homosexuality? Wouldn't this mean that if someone thinks of homosexuals as immoral animals that their mistaken definitions would have to be correct?vjackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05868095335395368227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155606404079052222006-08-14T19:46:00.000-06:002006-08-14T19:46:00.000-06:00AnonymousMy whole article is written in the contex...Anonymous<BR/><BR/>My whole article is written in the context of somebody who, I claim, made a mistake about what a word means. Obviously, I hold that people can make mistakes.<BR/><BR/>As I said, a writer must choose the term that causes the idea that he wants it to cause within his reader's mind. When he makes a prediction, he may be mistaken.<BR/><BR/>Another type of mistake is the translation error. For example, when I translate a passage from French into English I may not pick the English words that communicate the same ideas as the French word. <BR/><BR/>It is still the case that what it means to translate the French phrase into English is to find the English phrase that more closely causes the same ideas to arise in the mind of the reader/listener as the French phrase being translated.<BR/><BR/>Your examples of 'theory of evolution' and 'scientific theories' are translation errors. In this case, the translation is from a subgroup who are using a term in a specific way to communicate among each other. The translator substitutes some other meaning for their local meaning.<BR/><BR/>Yet, even here it is the case that the meaning of the word depends on what those using the word expect their intended audience (other members of the group) to understand them to mean.<BR/><BR/>Gleeson's article was written about people whose 'intended audience' is the general public. In this case, he is wrong to state that the general public expects the listener/reader to understand him as meaning anything other than, 'one who denies that God exists'.<BR/><BR/>The standard distinction used in public discourse is this:<BR/><BR/>One who holds that the proposition "God exists" is true is a theists.<BR/><BR/>One who holds that the proposition "God exists" is false is an atheist.<BR/><BR/>One who holds that he does not (cannot) know whether "God exists" is true or false is an agnostic.<BR/><BR/>If you go with these definitions, you can, with great reliability, accurately predict and explain the use of these terms.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155597211009006162006-08-14T17:13:00.000-06:002006-08-14T17:13:00.000-06:00In other words, the 'correct' definition of a word...<I>In other words, the 'correct' definition of a word is the prediction of what thoughts pop into the mind of the reader or listener when they encounter the word.</I><BR/><BR/>So, people are infallible when it comes to definitions? Whatever people imagine is the definition, is the definition - it's not possible to be wrong about the definition?<BR/><BR/>When people hear "the theory of evolution," most people seem to think that the origin of life is included. Therefore, the 'correct' definition of 'evolution' includes the origin of life - despite the fact that in science the origin of life is separate from biological evolution.<BR/><BR/>When people hear "scientific theory," most people seem to think that we are talking about some sort of guess or hunch. Therefore, the 'correct' definition of 'scientific theory' is a guess or hunch made by scientists - despite the fact that in science 'theory' isn't a guess or a hunch.<BR/><BR/>Obviously not all of this can be true. Why? Because it's possible for people to be mistaken about what words mean. A person can have a definition pop into their head which isn't correct. Their reasons for being mistaken might be understandable or reasonable, but it's still a mistake. Sometimes, people need to be told that the theory of evolution doesn't really include the origin of life. Sometimes, people need to be told that in science a 'theory' isn't a guess.<BR/><BR/>And, sometimes, people need to be told that people who call themselves 'atheists' includes those who simply aren't theists.<BR/><BR/>If the purpose of language is communication, then that purpose is undermined if I have to use 'atheist' to mean 'one who is in denial about God' because that's what pops into the mind of the theist I'm talking to but this same theist has to use 'atheist' to mean 'not a theist' because that's what pops into my mind. But of course, now what's popping into our minds is switched and we have to switch again... and so on into eternity, forever talking past one another.<BR/><BR/>If language is a tool for communication, what are we communicating about? Atheists. Who are these atheists - the narrow group of people the theist in question claims or the people who actually call themselves atheists and identify as atheists? Most likely the latter, in which case the theist in question is obviously wrong because they are using a definition which doesn't refer to those people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155556285085441452006-08-14T05:51:00.000-06:002006-08-14T05:51:00.000-06:00nathIt is true that day-to-day language is impreci...<B>nath</B><BR/><BR/>It is true that day-to-day language is imprecise. As a result, it is sometimes necessary to stipulate a more precise definition while writing. These are cases where an author says, "There is no word in our language that means 'X', so I will use this word. In what follows, whenever I use this word, take it to mean 'X'."<BR/><BR/>I am doing this constantly -- such as when I say "If an agent has a desire that P, and P is true in S, then S fulfills that desire."<BR/><BR/>However, in making a stipulated definition, I am not saying that those who use the term in is traditional sense are wrong -- that they do not know what the word means.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, this posting is not concerned with what you assume when somebody tells you is an atheist. It concerns what it is reasonable to think that others assume when you use the word 'atheist.' As I said, a clear writer must choose his words according to what he can reasonably predict will come to the mind of those who read it.<BR/><BR/>When you say that, <I>In day-to-day conversation, most people do take 'atheist' to mean 'one who believes that no gods exist',</I> it follows that, as a writer, if you use the term, you must either take this to be your definition, or you must stipulate that you are using a definition that deviates from this common understanding.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1155541110465136422006-08-14T01:38:00.000-06:002006-08-14T01:38:00.000-06:00I think the meaning of the word 'atheist' depends ...I think the meaning of the word 'atheist' depends on who I'm speaking to, and in what context. As Bertrand Russell put it:<BR/><I>I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.</I><BR/><BR/>In day-to-day conversation, most people do take 'atheist' to mean 'one who believes that no gods exist'. However, day-to-day language is notoriously imprecise and hard to reason in. This whole issue arises because most people are simply not capable of properly applying the law of excluded middle.<BR/><BR/>That said, if someone tells me he's atheist, the only assumption I make is that he is not theist.Nathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04737952788723847550noreply@blogger.com