But as we discovered, in order to have a meaningful discussion about (non)religion, we need to make sure we're all using the same definitions of these essential words. This is also especially important for the group itself. We identify ourselves as "freethinkers," but what exactly is "free" thought? And who counts as a freethinker?
We tried to answer those very questions at the meeting, but of course we didn't reach any sort of conclusion. Normally I think it's fine—perhaps even desirable—to leave a discussion with disagreements still on the table; but as I've already said, I think it's absolutely imperative we all speak that our most recent meeting last Tuesday (9/4)e same language in order to make those future discussions and disagreements even possible. And that's why I've decided to come up with a (tentative) list of definitions that the group will officially endorse. If you dispute any of these, by all means, either leave a comment below or shoot us an email and explain why. I write this not to end discussion, but to enable it; so please, if you find the following definitions wanting in any way, discuss them with us.
- Freethought and freethinkers
- Atheism
- Agnosticism
- More to come...
- FREETHOUGHT (and FREETHINKERS)
I have found no better definition of these terms than that offered by philosopher Bertrand Russell:
What makes a freethinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.
-Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Free Thought" (1957)
In other words, a freethinker . . .
- is someone who holds his or her beliefs because he or she finds them, after careful thought and rational inquiry, to be the most reasonable beliefs one could possibly hold.
- does not "know for sure" that what she believes is true; rather, she simply finds what she believes more reasonable than what she does not believe.
- attempts to justify his beliefs as much he is able, continually altering them according to the evidence.
- does not rely on authority, tradition, dogma, or revelation to form his beliefs; rather, he submits these pre-existing beliefs to critical scrutiny. If and only if do these beliefs survive that scrutiny does the freethinker then adopt them.
Allow me to emphasize that this definition does not discriminate based on one's conclusions, but on the way in which one reaches those conclusions. Freethinkers can be atheist, agnostic, theist (whether deist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, pantheist, etc.), or any number of other religious beliefs—so long as they arrive at these beliefs through the process outlined above.
- ATHEISM
Atheism refers either to one's disbelief or to one's lack of belief in the existence of gods. It is often split into "strong" and "weak" based on this distinction:
- Strong atheism affirms the non-existence of gods.
- Weak atheism is the absence of belief in gods.
What's the difference? Since a strong atheist affirms the non-existence of gods, he makes a knowledge claim: he claims to know that gods do not exist. (This is arguably problematic, because to attempt to "prove" a universal negative proposition may become logically fallacious.) On the other hand, a weak atheist simply lacks belief in gods. In other words, a weak atheist does not claim to know for sure that gods do not exist; instead, he simply sees no reason to believe that they do.
- AGNOSTICISM
While atheism refers to belief, agnosticism refers to knowledge. This, too, is often split into "strong" and "weak."
- Strong agnosticism holds that the question of the existence or nonexistence of gods is unknowable. A strong agnostic would say, "I don't know, neither do you, and neither of us ever can know."
- Weak agnosticism holds that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown, but not necessarily unknowable. Therefore, a weak agnostic withholds judgment until (or if) more evidence becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know, but maybe you do, and maybe we can."
Note that agnosticism and atheism are not necessarily opposed. An atheist may be an atheist because he believes the question of God's existence is fundamentally unknowable (strong agnosticism). In this case, he is termed an agnostic atheist.
- More to come . . .
Ignosticism, faith, religion, theism, nontheism, skepticism, and more to come later. I will update this post soon with those additions, so check back here for more.
With regard to point 2 on Atheism and the alleged fallaciousness of proving an universal negative proposition:
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me clear that we can (properly) prove universal negative propositions. I take these to be some proposition of the form:
For all x, x is not F
or equivalently,
There does not exist an x such that x is F
Mathematicians prove propositions of this sort quite frequently, I think. Take for example the rather famous proof that the square root of two is irrational. From a reductio, it is shown that for all x, if x is a square root of two, x is irrational. To put it another way, there does not exist a square root of two that is rational. These are univeral negative propositions.
To return to the issue of atheism at hand, it seems to me that a strong atheist can have very good reason for claiming to know that God does not exist. Perhaps omniscience is impossible given the nature of the past and future and quantum mechanics. Perhaps omnipotence necessarily conflicts with omni-benevolence. Perhaps the existence of unnecessary suffering is good justification for believing that a good God cannot exist. In each of these atheistic positions, the knowledge claim (of a universal negative proposition, that for all x, x is not God) seems very much justified.
Hey Jared,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, universal negative propositions *can* be proven---but only by demonstrating a contradiction in terms. (I suppose I'm employing the analytic-synthetic distinction here.) There's a difference between proving "No bachelors are married" and "No ravens are blue." The first can be shown to be true merely by analyzing the meaning of the term "bachelor" and the term "married." The second, however, could never be shown to be true, but only to be probable.
But you're right, strong atheism *does* make sense in cases when "God" is taken to mean "the omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient entity which exists 'outside' of space and time." If we analyze the meanings of words like "outside" and "space," or "omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence" taken together, we may come up with a contradiction in terms and thus "prove" that this sort of god could not exist--just as a married bachelor could not exist. But if these qualities are not packed into the meaning of "God," then this cannot be done.
So you're absolutely right, and I will qualify the bit about strong atheism. But I do think that we ought to make the distinction about which sorts of universal negative propositions can be "proven"---i.e., only those that are true by virtue of their meaning.
(That said, I'm persuaded by Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," so I'm not entirely sure where that would leave us in the case of strong atheism and God... which is fascinating and something I've never thought of before. I'd love to hear your thoughts about that if you have any you'd like to share.)
-ryan