ATHEISM: Positive and Negative! And Faith Too!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
|
(Excerpt from) The Presumption of Atheism by: Antony Flew The presumption of atheism which I want to discuss is not a form of presumptuousness. Indeed it might be regarded as an expression of the very opposite, a modest teachability. My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of innocence in the English law; a comparison which I shall develop in Section 2. What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist . The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays [1976] the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively . I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels ' positive atheist ' for the former and ' negative atheist ' for the latter. The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?' It is too soon to attempt a full answer to this challenge and this suggestion. My justification for introducing the notion of negative atheism will be found in the whole development of the present chapter. Then in Chapter Two I intend to argue for a return to the original usage of the word 'agnosticism', as first introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley. In the meantime it should be sufficient to point out that, following the present degenerate usage, an agnostic is one who, having entertained the proposition that God exists, now claims not to know either that it is or that it is not true. To be in this ordinary sense an agnostic you have already to have conceded that there is, and that you have, a legitimate concept of God; such that, whether or not this concept does in fact have application, it theoretically could. But the atheist in my peculiar interpretation, unlike the atheist in the usual sense, has not as yet and as such conceded even this. This point is important, though the question whether the word 'agnosticism' could bear the meaning which I want now to give to the word 'atheism' is not . What the protagonist of my presumption of atheism wants to show is that the debate about the existence of God ought to be conducted in a particular way, and that the issue should be seen in a certain perspective. His thesis about the onus of proof involves that it is up to the theist : first, to introduce and to defend his proposed concept of God; and, second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept of his does in fact have an application. https://web.archive.org/web/20051012172554/ |
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
292 visitors
Whereas nowadays [1976] the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.
NOTE: Please bring some new 'material' for consider to this discussion.
Tired, worn-out, canards, complaining ad nauseam, cussing gratuitously,
and attempts at projection onto others will be flagged!
Well, don't do that, then.
Definition of the word: Atheism:
atheism noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Origin
Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’
What bullshit. An agnostic atheist does NOT assert that there is no such being as God. I'm an agnostic atheist. I have no idea why you are so hellbent on trying to force this new term just because some dude wrote an article; there is already a perfectly good word in the dictionary. And since you're not an atheist, who are you to decide what we should be called? As for this part:
His thesis about the onus of proof involves that it is up to the theist: first, to introduce and
to defend his proposed concept of God; and, second, to provide sufficient reason
for believing that this concept of his does in fact have an application
Well, duh. That's what we keep telling you, and every time we do, you get upset. And you have never provided sufficient reason.
I'm out of here. I have no interest in playing this stupid game of semantics yet again.
See yourself out! Thanks for 'dropping by'!
For the record, and to not let your comment be a complete waste: That "dude" is atheist philosopher Antony Flew.
While he might can speak for his fellow atheists (and that is his point of privilege); theists are under no obligation to agree.
Calbab/CB is a specialist in this game. When he gets cornered in his game by his previous claims being exposed, he moves the goalposts and the game begins anew. It is obvious to those of us who have tried to have a reasonable discussion with him in the past that he has no intention of having a rational and intellectually honest debate.
Anthony Few rejected atheism as an old man and returned to the church when he became senile.
Did or did not Antony Flew go to church? Was Antony Flew senile in old age? In any case, what does that have to do with the many years he was an atheist? You are simply trying to diminish this man's ability to speak to the subject and that is questionable for you!
Final warning, do not attempt to make this discussion about me, personally. It will be flagged and deleted. (Smile.)
You do not have to attend church to be a Christian. You only need to believe that Jesus was the son of god.
According to the ghost writer of his book,
Flew doesn't sound much like a Deist because he describes an intelligent designer more in line with a YEC who has an active role in the life of his creations than a deist creator who lights the match and walks away from his creation.
Why did you choose Flew for your non-standard definitions instead of using the standard definitions from Websters or the Stanford Philosophy encyclopedia?
.
[ [Deleted.] ]
I have a bunch of atheist philosophers to choose from who 'express' viewpoints about what atheism is! In fact, so many that, like the study of theology, I am slowly looking them over one by one in my own time. I present them for discussion in hopes of understanding where their perspectives register with NT atheists.
This constant sniping and 'attacks' are unexpected, unreasonable, and unwarranted, in my opinion. This information has been around long before I happened across it last week!
Philosopher Antony Flew was 53 years old in 1976 when writing, The Presumption of Atheism, he died in 2010 at 87 years of age. I am skeptical senility was an issue for Mr. Flew at the time, for he was probably the most consistent atheist apologist in philosophy through most of the 20th century.
Bertrand Russell was both an atheist and a logician, He never recanted his atheism.
Okay. And?
Funny you bring that up! How, how, and why did Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia (SEP) change (in some minimal way) its definition? Did an atheist petition to make the change from the longtime standard definition? Let's investigate: Please note the time-frame in red below!
*
I get this website thrown at me a lot by theists who want to define atheism as the claim that god does not exist. Well, Stanford replied. Below is the email I sent to them, followed by their response.
(Please excuse the rudeness and crudeness of my email, I was writing out of frustration and was not expecting a reply)
----------------------------------------------------
Dear Stanford,
I am constantly having your definitions of atheism and agnosticism regurgitated to me by people who don't seem to understand what they mean and your authoritative definition completely muddies the waters.
Your definition which can be seen at the the following link states: *
"‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it."
I am forced to point out to you that agnosticism deals with knowledge claims, not claims of belief. Why are you conflating the two? A belief necessarily deals with a single claim; God exists is one claim; God does not exist is another claim- or String theory is true is one claim; string theory is not true is another claim.
A cosmologist who does not know if either position about string theory is true would be considered an agnostic. The cosmologist then disbelieves claim 1; string theory is true, therefore, for lack of a better term, is an atheist with respect to string theory. They do not necessarily believe that claim 2; string theory is false, is true.
Similarly, with respect to god claims, a person who does not know if either claim (god exists / god does not exist) is true would be an agnostic. The person who disbelieves claim 1; God exists is an atheist and this does not say anything about their acceptance that claim 2; god does not exist, is true.
I will use an analogy:
If I made the claim that there are an odd number of blades of grass in my front yard, would you believe me?
No, you wouldn't unless I could substantiate that claim (if you are rational). Does that then mean you believe the opposite of that claim? That there are an even number of blades of grass in my front yard? No, you wouldn't accept that claim either. With respect to your belief in the true dichotomy of the nature of the grass then, you are an atheist; you disbelieve claim 1; there are an odd number of blades of grass. If you don't know which claim is true, you are an agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
With respect to god claims, I identify as an agnostic atheist; I do not know if a god exists or not, and I disbelieve the claim that a god does exist.
Gnostic: Of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge. --> Therefore it's opposite, agnostic, relates to a lack of knowledge.
Theist: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures --> Therefore it's opposite, atheist, relates to a lack of belief in the existence of gods and not necessarily the belief in the opposite claim, that no gods exist.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists
Source [for definitions]: Oxford English Dictionary
Kindly update your definitions to reflect this.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[theresidentskeptic]
----------------------------------REPLY FROM STANFORD BELOW----------------------------------
Dear [theresidentskeptic]
Thank you for writing to us about the entry on atheism and agnosticism. We have received messages about this issue before and are continuing to consider whether and how the entry might be adjusted.
That said, the matter is not as clear cut as you suggest. While the term "atheism" is used in a variety of ways in general discourse, our entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature. Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry--that 'atheism' means the denial of the existence of God--is correct in the philosophical literature.
In our understanding, the argument for this broader notion was introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony Flew in "The Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted that he was using an etymological argument to try to convince people *not* to follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal was to reframe the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand "atheism" as a default position .
Not everyone has been convinced to use the term in Flew's way simply on the force of his argument. For some, who consider themselves atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to water down a perfectly good concept. For others, who consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they rejected.
All that said, we are continuing to examine the situation regarding the definitions as presented in this entry.
All the best,
Yours,
Uri
-------------------------------------------------------
Uri Nodelman Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Senior Editor
CSLI/Cordura Hall editors@plato.stanford.edu
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-4115
Episste, as you and others can discern this "interaction" occurred in 2011, well before this "tepid" honorable mention of the words, "agnostic-atheism" in the 2017 version! It seems some are not above letter writing campaigns !
one of the reasons I am not religious is I don't want to put up with all the denominations and their weird differences. It's just another part of religion that does not fit together
Charger, I am not a member of any organized religion. Though I was in the past, being part of a church, a denomination, or social 'crowd,' is not a requirement of being a believer. World-wide religions are for the purposes of community, connection, and belonging. Some people need this, and some do not.
Imagine my surprise when researching atheism to find they divide themselves into factions and 'add-tos' too!
All that said, it is important to understand that these are well-established institutions, belief systems, worldviews, and philosophies. It does no one harm to know they exist, even when not being an active participant!
Because there are no hard, fast doctrinal rules or requirements that atheists have to memorize and study in order to be an atheist, there are as many variations of atheism as there are atheists. I doubt any of us feel exactly the same way about everything. So while many self identify with one broad branch of atheism or another, such as Gnostic or agnostic atheism, there are no "denominations" where all atheists of one belief collect and bask in their oneness. Instead, being an atheist is more like going to Comic-con where there is a wide range of favorite genres and fictional characters, but they don't reject you just because you're dressed as the Adam West batman instead of the new bat armor of the Dark Knight or Batfleck. It's about as diverse a group of characters as you can find under one roof, yet they're all there getting along and appreciating everyone else's style and opinion.
Could you imagine if they had "Religi-con" where every religion came to one event center and set up booths and represented their faith, with Hindu, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Buddhism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Church of England, Southern Baptist, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Judaism, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, Shinto and every other religion under the sun. Which convention do you think would require more security? Comic-Con or Religi-con? Which convention would have more orderly and well behaved visitors? With Religi-con, they would certainly be a diverse a group, yet I find it hard to believe they would be getting along and appreciating everyone else's faith and opinion.
Then why are some combative and attacking the message from fellow atheist, Antony Flew? How orderly and well-behaved has Flew been received here by his peers? I do not want to rehash the words and tone borne in two comments above. Better just to read them for oneself.
There is no distinction to be made between atheism splitting and theism dividing. On one side people permit it and on the other the Spirit allows for differences in orthodoxy.
Negative atheism=Skeptical atheism=Agnostic-atheism= Lack of belief in God.
NOTE:
Negative atheism, by definition, includes Positive Atheism (a belief that God and gods do not exist). But, Positive atheism (belief that God and gods do not exist) does not include negative atheism.
Conservative Christians are welcome to share in this discussion.
When atheists SAY they "just lack a belief in God, gods" do they realize that this position is a state of mind? One which does not lead down a path looking for alternative ways to explain the world apart from God?
Atheists don't usually make decisions based on belief or lack thereof. We make our decisions on the lack of supporting objective evidence of any god existing. You should stop trying to define atheism/agnosticism via your religious lenses.
Then, why is the definition for atheism:
atheism noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
And, not something else? Is it that atheism can not be defined in and of itself?
There might be some people whose stance is disbelief, but for the vast majority is is based on the logical stance that there is no objective evidence of a god/creator.
You keep trying to being belief into the equation where there is none involved. This is what separates atheists/agnostic from religious people. We do not make decisions based on an emotion such as belief or faith.
That should have read;
I'm sorry for my continued typos because I did not proofread sufficiently before clicking Post.
Why oh why do you keep pointing a finger at me? I did not write:
Those are as 'straight-laced' a set of facts as you can gather yourself. But, you insist I and some set of amorphous emotions tied to belief and faith are responsible for atheist history!
You really need to stop that now. It is calling into question why you can not see who is speaking in the 'documents' presented. The statements are what they are! And, if you wish for anyone to understand them and not just have them be "above it all" you need to interpret what other atheists thinkers have penned for the masses and try to make sense of them for yourself. Or, at the very least, reject them without attributing it to uninvolved readers.
Don't worry. Sometimes—plenty times even—I mess up on a post. Most people, those goodly souls, get the overall context and meaning of the sentences, and for that I am grateful. The few who like to point it out, well, what can you do? (Smile.)
We all likely writing at 'oddball' times of the day and night, with life going on all around us in one way or another!
Now then, when it comes to 'burden of proof' everybody has a responsibility to support their held position.
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Where is the objective evidence that your god actually exists, since you are making a positive claim that there is a god/creator?
I can make the very same claim that you did about FSM so you can you prove that she doesn't exist? Can you prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter?
I have asserted no such thing! I simply pointed out that any one stating a position of any kind has a responsibility to support it. Subsequently, since you SAY you can make the claim the 'FSM' or 'teapo orbiter' are real—go for it!
That is now how the logical burden of proof works. Believers are making a positive claim of god existing, so they must prove their claim to be true. Atheists are merely questioning the validity of your claim of god exists because of the lack of empirical evidence. You cannot rewrite the logical burden of proof because you don't like the current that burden rests on your shoulders and the idea that it is not amenable to either religious belief and faith.
It is obvious that my rhetorical analogy went over your head and into near-earth orbit.
Atheists are merely questioning the validity of your claim of god exists because of the lack of empirical evidence.
How about you share the logical 'burden of proof' by proving the claim that the material world is all that exist?
What's there to validate and question when you know the answer is faith and indwelling Spirit for the believers? Neither of which is acceptable to an adherent of materialism.
As for the FSM and tea pot orbiter - I threw them both deservedly into a rhetorical trash bin!
There is no objective or empirical evidence that anything else exists.
Atheists and agnostics understand that faith and belief are important to believers but neither of those ideas meets the standard of empirical evidence. You can believe in what you want but you cannot expect others to accept that the focus of your beliefs is valid.
What else would there be? Where is the evidence for it? We know the material world exists. There's nothing outside of imagination to suggest anything else does.
Sounds like convincing yourself of something. Or self delusion.
Because they lack empirical evidence or logical rationality. Believing something exists does not mean it does. Faith is just wishful thinking in that regard.
Where's your proof that god, the supernatural, or whatever else besides the material world exists? You do believe and assert something else exists, right?
You have a misimpression. I do not "expect you to belief as I do. Maybe, you got that from the seeded article above?
That is not proof of the claim that the material world is all that exist.
How about you back up and address the article on entry here. Why do you think it is your 'obligation' or 'duty' to query theists about faith and indwelling, when you level of understanding is best suited to an explanation of a lack of belief in God, and gods? Atheism is the lead topic of discussion.
The idea that you can imagine other levels of existence doesn't mean that they are actually real. This is the critical difference between science and science fiction or religion.
Your sincere religious beliefs or your faith is not a sufficient reason for you attempt to turn logic on its head and try to put the burden of proof on others when you claim that god exists?
Why are you convinced that your god exists and yet you don't believe that Krishna, Vishnu, Horus, Thor, and Zeus do not?
There is no proof anything else does either. So there is no reason to believe or accept it does.
How about you answer my questions!
Because they're the one's making the affirmative claims or inferences regarding the existence of something which has no proof!
How arrogant to think atheists cannot understand just because they do not believe as you do.
And you're the one implying there is something more than the material world.
Now, that is just spin. You really do not have any proof the material world is all that exist, do you?
This is all an atheist ploy began by atheist philosopher Antony Flew. He seems to have succeeded in his efforts to put together "for all times" the play:
His thesis about the onus of proof involves that it is up to the theist: first, to introduce and
to defend his proposed concept of God; and, second, to provide sufficient reason
for believing that this concept of his does in fact have an application.
You are using it now, and in the worst way. It is clear you are falling back on a canard of 'other' gods you have a lack of belief in to deflect from the issue. This deception is being voiced front and center. Equally so, as atheists have been exposed @4.2.6 requesting that definitions be changed to suit an agenda.
You belief system and worldview is materialism. The tactic you present is not to accept any evidences except it appears in the material world. You will not accept the supernatural, faith, or the indwelling Spirit, and you dispute every reference to spiritualism, and God existing.
This is evidence you can not (or will not permit yourself to) be psychologically convinced that God exists. You have a positive belief in materialism, and as you imply @9.1.10 you can understand other ways of knowing, but choose not to!
Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot analogy predates Flew by many years.
Logically you cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, so the burden of proof lies upon people making positive claims that something does exist.
I've made no mention of my beliefs.
Because there is no evidence!
That is not evidence. It is subjective and anecdotal. Perhaps you do not understand what constitutes evidence!
material (reality) is what is demonstrable. No belief is required or necessary.
Because it's irrational and, as I said, there is no evidence.
You have asserted a lack of belief in God, gods. This should place you in a neutral position to hear and discuss all available information for or against God, gods. That is not the case, for:
How can you put off a neutral or impartial stance?
How can you convince anyone you do not start with a bias, which a lack of belief calls for?
How can you state you have looked at all the available information?
An aside: How can positive atheists offer the [valid] proposition there is no God, gods?
I'm not sure of the definition of the positive atheist term that you are fond of, so I will not use it.
Gnostic atheists have no proof that god absolutely does not exist and have made a statement on faith that god/s do not exist.
Agnostic atheists have taken a stance that currently there is no evidence that God exists, but it is theoretically possible, even if it is unlikely, that some evidence of a supernatural creator may be presented in the future.
There are no married bachelors in existence. No squared circles. No faithless faithful.
I am not 'fond' of positive atheist; it is not an endearing phrase, if that is what you mean. Sure, be skeptical and look it up for yourself. (Or, ask in the other group discussion.)
As for the agnostic atheists, the "lack of beliefers in God, gods" which is a state of mind, not a position per se-see my position @9.1.16!
It does beg the question that you appear here to discuss atheism - lack of belief in God, gods, when actually are discussing a worldview: Materialism.
Everybody believes something, Gordy! And speaking of reality, you are using materialism to define a reality with God. Moreover, since you state there no material evidence of God; I counter by saying you label and dismiss such evidences as 'irrational' and subsequently, refuse to accept it.
Oops! . . . a reality withOUT God.
What question would that be?
You presume too much.
Your "evidence" is subjective, and anecdotal, which is not true (or rational) evidence. It's basically along the lines of because "you say so." So yes, that is not evidence and I do dismiss it as such, until you provide actual empirical evidence.
You have yet to prove there is a god.
And you deny, delay, and deflect a lot!
You must be projecting. Especially since you have not answered any of my questions or challenges. And when I point out your errors or lack of understanding, you simply throw up a smokescreen and try to ignore it. It's the very height of intellectual cowardice and dishonesty on your part! And I doubt I'm not the only one who sees that too!
I am distracted by a type of cowardice which is messing with this article appearing in the "Recent Article" section on the front page. Maybe I could see better if I could get some consistency there.
I am not going to waste time pitching comments back and forth with you, Gordy. I am an theist who believes in God. You are a materialist or something so horrible you choose not to share it as a point for discussion.
My final comment this session with you is this: As a negative atheist or agnostic-atheist (your cohorts term) you will agree with me that your position is a neutral one seeking information about God existing or God not existing.
Are you open to persuasion of all kind for God or do you place limits on what you will accept as proofs of God?
I am showing you a test. This should get the article to the top.
Hi Perrie! I appreciate you looking into this one for me. You're the best!
test 2
There are no one-sided sticks in existence.
Such a claim would prove hollow. Here is possibly why:
It strikes me your Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) or china teapot orbiter have no material impact to this Earth and its inhabitants. There certainly are no doctrines, no books dedicated to any one or set of principles, no substantive body of work(s), not a single changed life (confession), or other credible behaviors attributed to either of these two fabrications.
So if I write a book and make the claims, then it would be true?
Welcome Eg!
The question I have for you is this: Is anything in life ever that easy? I mean, did you ever have a chance to read what Jesus the Christ went through to get a unique place in the hearts of men and women?
Right at this moment, my interest has turned to why our comments are not appearing under the "Recent Articles" section like others.
We are back on frontpage. Moving on.
It is unclear to me how this article with comments posted mere "minutes" ago is resting between articles 1 hour through 3 hours ago. . . . More research is needed! Frankly, it is a significant distraction.
Richard Dawkins ’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric:
So will you look at that.
Source:
The God Delusion
Well, it looks like this is done. Good! Moving on.
Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric: