JON CURRY SAID:
"Steve once accused me of being an atheist, and when I replied that I wasn't he simply re-defined the word atheist to include Mormons, Muslims, etc."
The funny thing about this complaint is that Curry is an apostate. Assuming that he was an orthodox (albeit nominal) Christian once upon a time, I'm defining words the same way he used to define them—unless he was just as illogical back then as he is today.
An atheist denies the existence of God. There is only one true God. The true God is the God of Biblical theism.
If you deny the existence of the only God there is, then you're an atheist.
I'm sorry for Curry if he's too illogical to grasp this rather elementary point.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"There is only one true God. The true God is the God of Biblical theism."
Question Beggar!!!!!
(you got served!)
I agree with Steve! The Bible knows of only two types of people, believer and unbeliever; those who are are Christ and those who are against Christ, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine years ago said this very same thing about the cults. At first I did not agree with him, but that was before I understand what he meant. This was revolution to my theory of apologetics.
The part I always hate about atheist-theist debates is the definition of "atheism", at least where the conversation is something like, "an atheist is someone who says there is no god whatsoever", "no no, an atheist is just someone who disbelieves in any kind of a god", etc. It's so horribly boring.
ReplyDeleteNow let's see where this argument takes us.
ReplyDeleteIf someone believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good being, but not specifically in the God of Christianity, that person is an atheist.
The idea here seems to be that if a person (1) doesn't believe things that are true about God, or (2) believes things that aren't true about God, that person hasn't believed in the one true God.
But wouldn't this rule out everyone? Calvinists believe in a God who hasn't given us free will. Others believe in a God who has given us free will. One of these groups must believe something false about God, so one of the groups, according to Steve, must be composed of atheists.
But we could be even more extreme. Some Christians believe in a God who revealed Mark 16:9-20 as part of his revelation. Others believe in a God who did not reveal this passage. Hence, one group consists of atheists.
I suspect that every believer in the world believes something false about God, making all believers atheists. How far are you willing to go, Steve?
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteSteve said:
"There is only one true God. The true God is the God of Biblical theism."
Question Beggar!!!!!
(you got served!)
*****************
It's no more question-begging than how an atheist defines theism. There are no value-free definitions in this debate. Each side will naturally assume its own viewpoint. The question is how well we defend our respective viewpoint.
On the one hand, an atheist may define theism is such abstract, generic terms that his definition won't correspond to any concrete, living religion in particular.
On the other hand, atheism generally targets Christian theism. The average atheist treats the Christian concept of God as the frame of reference. That's the standard of comparison. That is what he is laboring to disprove.
So he himself is acting as if Christian theism is the only live option. Once you disprove Christian theism, what's left over is just a mopping up operation.
David Wood said:
ReplyDeleteNow let's see where this argument takes us.
If someone believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good being, but not specifically in the God of Christianity, that person is an atheist.
The idea here seems to be that if a person (1) doesn't believe things that are true about God, or (2) believes things that aren't true about God, that person hasn't believed in the one true God.
But wouldn't this rule out everyone? Calvinists believe in a God who hasn't given us free will. Others believe in a God who has given us free will. One of these groups must believe something false about God, so one of the groups, according to Steve, must be composed of atheists.
But we could be even more extreme. Some Christians believe in a God who revealed Mark 16:9-20 as part of his revelation. Others believe in a God who did not reveal this passage. Hence, one group consists of atheists.
I suspect that every believer in the world believes something false about God, making all believers atheists. How far are you willing to go, Steve?
**********************************************
David,
You simply need to assume an eschatological perspective. Since everyone is a Calvinist in heaven, that makes an Evangelical Arminian an honorary Calvinist, retroactively speaking! :-)
On a serious note, I could turn David's question around. As an evangelical, he doesn't believe that everyone worships the true God. So where does he draw the line?
ReplyDeleteIf someone rejects Christianity, I rule them out as Christians, not as theists. What they believe in might not exist as they believe, but they believe in the existence of God, which makes them theists.
ReplyDeleteDavid Wood said:
ReplyDelete"If someone rejects Christianity, I rule them out as Christians, not as theists. What they believe in might not exist as they believe, but they believe in the existence of God, which makes them theists."
That's ambiguous. They believe in a nonexistent God while the disbelieve in the existent God. Subjectively speaking, you may say they are theists—but objectively speaking, they are atheists since there is no extramental object that corresponds to their belief.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou are making an elementary mistake, here:
That's ambiguous. They believe in a nonexistent God while the disbelieve in the existent God. Subjectively speaking, you may say they are theists—but objectively speaking, they are atheists since there is no extramental object that corresponds to their belief.
The terms "atheism" and "theism" do not presuppose the actuality of a deity or lack thereof. The terms apply to their *beliefs*. These terms are useful precise because they *avoid* the commitment to an ultimate answer as to the actuality of the existence of a deity. "Theism" describes one kind of belief, and "atheism" describes another. Suppose that God does or does not exist has *zero* impact on the common usage of these terms.
You're free to use words any way you want, of course. Your novel interpretation of the word "atheism" evokes Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland:
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
You are asserting your dominion over your use of the word "atheism", here, and that's fine. But if you'd like to be understood, and to understand what those around you are saying with respect to these terms, your idea here makes "Jabberwocky" of a theological discussion.
-Touchstone
Touchstone said...
ReplyDeleteThe terms "atheism" and "theism" do not presuppose the actuality of a deity or lack thereof. The terms apply to their *beliefs*. These terms are useful precise because they *avoid* the commitment to an ultimate answer as to the actuality of the existence of a deity.
****************
1. Notice how T-stone is contradicting himself. If the terms apply to "beliefs," then that does entail a doxastic commitment to the actual existence, or not, of a deity.
2. And why should I favor a subjective classification scheme over an objective classification scheme?
By T-stone's logic, if a man sincerely believes that he is the reincarnation of Evis Presley, then I should classify him as the reincarnation of Evis Presley. Who am I to deny him his self-identification! Who am I to suggest that he is a self-deluded wannabe!
Steve,
ReplyDelete1. Notice how T-stone is contradicting himself. If the terms apply to "beliefs," then that does entail a doxastic commitment to the actual existence, or not, of a deity.
Um, Steve, beliefs do not determine the actuality of a deity. The doxastic commitments are precisely what "atheism" and "theism" are trying to describe! If I take a different pair of related terms -- heliocentric astronomy and Ptolemaic astronomy -- I'm not obligated by the use of either terms to commit to the ultimate truth or falsehood. These terms, like "atheist" and "theism", are simply labels for factual descriptions *about* beliefs, not commitments to the alethic value of those beliefs.
2. And why should I favor a subjective classification scheme over an objective classification scheme?
I think a good reason would be that you would like to be understood by those who read what you write. Since the common usage of the terms makes no commitment to the actuality of any deity, but is just a lable for *beliefs* with respect to the actuality of a deity, the practical effect of your "objective classification" (heh!) is to promote confusion and misunderstanding.
By T-stone's logic, if a man sincerely believes that he is the reincarnation of Evis Presley, then I should classify him as the reincarnation of Evis Presley. Who am I to deny him his self-identification! Who am I to suggest that he is a self-deluded wannabe!
You seem to be having trouble separating the concept of what one *believes* from the concept of actuality, Steve. If Joe is a person who believes he is the re-incarnation of Elvis, I don't affirm that he *is* Elvis re-incarnated by affirming that's what he *believes*. If I call him a "Presleyist" as a label I use to point to his belief that he is the reincarnation of Elvis, that label in now way affirms or denies the truth of the belief.
It's simply a label pointing to a description of Joe's belief. I don't see how you'd get mixed up like this if you can keep the concept of "belief" distinct from the concept of "actuality". "Atheism" is a useful label *because* it doesn't get tangled up in the ultimate question of actuality. It's useful as a means of categorizing and distinguishing beliefs.
-Touchstone
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete***QUOTE***
Um, Steve, beliefs do not determine the actuality of a deity. The doxastic commitments are precisely what "atheism" and "theism" are trying to describe! If I take a different pair of related terms -- heliocentric astronomy and Ptolemaic astronomy -- I'm not obligated by the use of either terms to commit to the ultimate truth or falsehood. These terms, like "atheist" and "theism", are simply labels for factual descriptions *about* beliefs, not commitments to the alethic value of those beliefs.
***END-QUOTE***
You’re being simple-minded. Just for starters, there’s a potential and important difference between how an individual classifies himself, and how an outsider classifies the individual.
Rudy may classify himself as a conservative Republican while a rightwing pundit might classify him as a RINO.
A self-classification does commit the subject to the veracity of the classification in a way that an outsider’s classification may not.
Furthermore, there are situations in which one classification is correct, and another is incorrect. Sometimes the self-classification is correct, at other times, incorrect. Same for the outsider’s classification.
The subject of the self-classification may be self-deluded. Or the outsider may be inaccurate.
Ben Laden may classify himself as freedom fighter and a servant of God.
Forgive me if I choose less flattering categories to describe him.
***QUOTE***
I think a good reason would be that you would like to be understood by those who read what you write.
***END-QUOTE***
Disingenuous since T-stone understands perfectly well what I mean.
***QUOTE***
Since the common usage of the terms makes no commitment to the actuality of any deity, but is just a lable for *beliefs* with respect to the actuality of a deity, the practical effect of your "objective classification" (heh!) is to promote confusion and misunderstanding.
***END-QUOTE***
There’s such a thing as propagandistic labeling. Mainland China calls itself the People’s Republic of China. I call it Red China.
I’m not bound by someone else’s self-serving usage.
There are times when we can go along with linguistic convention, and then there are times when we can and ought to challenge linguistic convention.
***QUOTE***
If I call him a "Presleyist."
***END-QUOTE***
But he’s not a Presleyist. He’s not a follower of Presley. Rather, he claims to be Presley.
So you’re not calling him what he calls himself. Rather, because he really isn’t the reincarnation of Elvis, you are resorting to a label which distinguishes between belief and reality.
By the same token, there’s nothing wrong with me saying that a classification system should sometimes correspond to the way things truly are.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou’re being simple-minded. Just for starters, there’s a potential and important difference between how an individual classifies himself, and how an outsider classifies the individual.
Huh? If Joe says "I do not believe in the existence of any deity", we would call him an "atheist". He would call himself an "atheist". I don't see how that differs from the subject classifying his own beliefs, and others classifying those same beliefs.
Rudy may classify himself as a conservative Republican while a rightwing pundit might classify him as a RINO.
A self-classification does commit the subject to the veracity of the classification in a way that an outsider’s classification may not.
Only because the belief *belongs* to the subject. If you suggesting to me that people believe the things they believe, I'm just gonna shrug and say "so?". If you are going to point out that the beliefs of someone *else* are not necessarily commitments on your part to the truth of those beliefs, again, I salute your grasp of the obvious.
Furthermore, there are situations in which one classification is correct, and another is incorrect. Sometimes the self-classification is correct, at other times, incorrect. Same for the outsider’s classification.
Yes, but it's naive to suppose there is a demonstrable means for deciding what is "correct" in many of these cases - the actuality of a deity being the poster child for such problems. That's precisely why "atheism" and "theism" are useful; they avoid problematic judgments about the actuality of a deity, and instead simply serve as labels for different kinds of *beliefs*.
As the first commenter well noted, this whole post and argument is an excercise in begging the question. If you assume that language spans more than just Christians, than your definition *is* just a way to beg the question of God's existence.
The subject of the self-classification may be self-deluded. Or the outsider may be inaccurate.
Sure, but this doesn't impinge on the *description* of those beliefs. If we look at jihadist who believes he is a "freedom fighter", my judgment of him as a "terrorist" in no way affects the *actuality* of the jihadist's belief. It remains *true* to say that the jihadist *believes* he is a freedom fighter, even as I assert that he is just a murderous criminal.
Ben Laden may classify himself as freedom fighter and a servant of God.
OK, bin Laden has the following beliefs:
(a) I am a freedom fighter.
(b) I am a servant of Allah.
Forgive me if I choose less flattering categories to describe him.
I would choose some extremely negative labels myself. Furthermore, I'd say that I have the belief that bin Laden's beliefs (a) and (b) are wholly misgiven.
But none of that changes the actuality of bin Laden holding to beliefs (a) and (b). Calling him a "jihadist" in no way endorses the *truth* of (a) and (b). "Jihadist" is simply a symbol, and its referents are (a) and (b).
***QUOTE***
I think a good reason would be that you would like to be understood by those who read what you write.
***END-QUOTE***
Disingenuous since T-stone understands perfectly well what I mean.
I think I must not understand what you mean. If you are now going to start referring to Mormons as "atheists" I will likely be quite confused, as everybody else I talked to would describe them as "theists". I can try to keep a "Steve dictionary" in mind, and remember that you are waging some kind of political campaign against the consensus usage of "atheism", but this isn't a scalable idea at all. The reason language has the utility it does is because it represents a "commons", a shared repository of semantics and meaning.
***QUOTE***
Since the common usage of the terms makes no commitment to the actuality of any deity, but is just a lable for *beliefs* with respect to the actuality of a deity, the practical effect of your "objective classification" (heh!) is to promote confusion and misunderstanding.
***END-QUOTE***
There’s such a thing as propagandistic labeling. Mainland China calls itself the People’s Republic of China. I call it Red China.
I'm aware, and that is one reason I think your definition of "atheist" is ill-advised; it's blatantly propagandistic. You are doing to "atheist" what "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" -- the North Koreans -- does to "democratic".
As I pointed out with the Lewis Carroll quote, though, you are free to advance any meaning you want for a word.
I’m not bound by someone else’s self-serving usage.
Indeed. You now have your *own* self-serving usage of the word!
Although, I wonder how you see "atheism" as self-serving for atheists (conventional meaning) in a way that "theism" (conventional meaning) does not? If "atheism" is just a label that identifies a belief that no deity exists -- or maybe I should say 'identifies a *lack* of belief in a deity' -- how would this be self serving to an atheist? It seems just a reflection of the facts of the matter: not that gods do not exist, but that the atheist entertains the *belief* that no gods exist. If it's merely factual, then, what's the "self-serving" part, again?
There are times when we can go along with linguistic convention, and then there are times when we can and ought to challenge linguistic convention.
That may be. But that just invites the question: what is "self-serving", or "inaccurate" about the term atheism? It's a *definition* -- a tautology, Steve. It's just a label for a certain configuration of metaphysical beliefs.
Say the world capitulates to your request, and agrees to the Dictionary of Steve:
atheism: rejection of the Calvinist view of God.
The world then stops using "atheism" as it has been, in deference to Steve. But now, the rest of us have a practical problem: we need a label, a bit of short hand for "the belief that no deities exist". So a particularly un-creative person suggest a *replacement* label to serve the function that "atheism" used to: "nodeityism". It doesn't have quite the ring to it that "atheism" had, but it works.
nodeityism: the belief that no deities exist
Now we have what we need, again. We can talk about "nodeityists" (which is a mouthful!) and thereby signify those individuals who do, in fact, lack the belief in the existence of any deity. It doesn't include Mormons who believe in the existence of a deity, for example. Steve's new "atheism" definition can't be used, as Mormons would be included, as well as all other individuals who maintained the belief in a deity that was not the God of Calvin.
So, "nodeityism", despite the difficulties it introduces in pronunciation, would emerge as a common, highly useful word, especially in theological and philosophical discussions.
So the question is: would you be satisfied with this, Steve? If the world ceded you the term "atheist", and adopted the term "nodeityist" in its place, would you be placated? Or would you then go after "nodeityism"?
***QUOTE***
If I call him a "Presleyist."
***END-QUOTE***
But he’s not a Presleyist. He’s not a follower of Presley. Rather, he claims to be Presley.
Steve, "Presleyist" is a term *I* made up, here. So *I* get to determine its meaning, initially at least! Remember Humpty Dumpty? By "Presleyist", I meant "a person who believes they are the re-incarnation of Elvis Presley". It's sort of revealing here that you are now claiming dominion over a term *I* just made up for my own purposes!
So you’re not calling him what he calls himself. Rather, because he really isn’t the reincarnation of Elvis, you are resorting to a label which distinguishes between belief and reality.
"Presleyist" doesn't point to any such distinction. It only points to "the belief that one is the re-incarnation of Elvis Presley". It's a label that points to a factual description of Joe's beliefs. It says precisely *nothing* about the ultimate truth of that belief -- for or against.
By the same token, there’s nothing wrong with me saying that a classification system should sometimes correspond to the way things truly are.
No, but that's an argument for using "atheist" the way the rest of us do: it classifies things in a way that corresponds to the way things truly are. It *is* actually the case that atheists (conventional meaning) do lack a belief in the existence of a deity. So "atheist", in its common understanding, is just what you propose -- a term that indicates the way things truly are.
Perversely, it is your *new* definition that subverts your stated goals here of correspondence to the way things truly are. If "atheism" (Steve version) is tied to some ultimate verdict of the truth of the existence of the God of Calvin, then this "correspondence to the way things truly are" becomes a *falsehood* for anyone who doesn't affirm the God of Calvin. The conventional meaning doesn't beg ultimate questions, and is useful because of it. Your version is a form of The Ultimate Question Begged™, and is problematic as a matter of language, because of it.
-Touchstone
So according to Steve, to be classified as "a believer in X," X must actually be the case.
ReplyDeleteAtheists believe that the following proposition is true:
"God does not exist."
But since God does exist, the atheist's belief is not actually the case.
Hence, there are no atheists.
Touchstone said:
ReplyDeleteUm, Steve, beliefs do not determine the actuality of a deity.
and
I think a good reason would be that you would like to be understood by those who read what you write.
It's funny that Touchstone (of all people) would say this. In the past, he's claimed to be an evangelical Christian who believes in the God of the Bible. Yet, despite his stated beliefs, he's rather far removed from his claims. For starters, Peter has shown that he has striking similarities if not identity with radical skepticism.
David Wood said:
ReplyDeleteSo according to Steve, to be classified as "a believer in X," X must actually be the case.
Atheists believe that the following proposition is true:
"God does not exist."
But since God does exist, the atheist's belief is not actually the case.
Hence, there are no atheists
*****************************
Sorry, David, but the two cases (theism, atheism) are asymmetrical. The question of what constitutes the object or referent of a negation is a metaphysically intricate issue that's been around since the days of Parmenides, and continues to challenge modern-day philosophers like the late Hector Neri Castaneda (guise theory attempts to ground the ontological status of fictions, among other things).
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"Sorry, David, but the two cases (theism, atheism) are asymmetrical."
You should have clarified that the proposition only needs to be true if it's affirmative.
So let's role with this.
I believe that a man lives in the apartment next to mine. Let's call people with such a belief "manites."
"Ha!" You say. "The man's name is 'Jeff.' Since you didn't know the truth about him, you're not really a 'manite.'"
Interesting view, since I defined "manite" as "a person who believes that a man lives in the apartment next to mine."
I'd like to return to my former question, which wasn't answered. Probably every Christian in the world believes something false about God, and it's certain than none of us knows the complete truth about God. Apparently, then, none of us believes in the one true God. So, on your view, does this make us all atheists? If so, wow! If not, then you agree that (1) a person may believe false things about God and still be a theist, and (2) a person may be ignorant of facts about God and still be a theist.
Yet it would be odd to hold (1) and (2) while rejecting the view that a person who believes in God is a theist just because he doesn't know the whole truth about God.
DAVID WOOD SAID:
ReplyDeleteI'd like to return to my former question, which wasn't answered. Probably every Christian in the world believes something false about God, and it's certain than none of us knows the complete truth about God. Apparently, then, none of us believes in the one true God. So, on your view, does this make us all atheists? If so, wow! If not, then you agree that (1) a person may believe false things about God and still be a theist, and (2) a person may be ignorant of facts about God and still be a theist. Yet it would be odd to hold (1) and (2) while rejecting the view that a person who believes in God is a theist just because he doesn't know the whole truth about God.
***************************************************
Hi David,
1.I still don’t know why you think, if this is a problem, it’s a problem that singles out my own position.
Beliefs about God range along of continuum of truth and error, from the perfect theology of the Archangel Michael to a radical heretic or heathen idolater.
Surely you yourself take the view that there’s a point somewhere along the continuum at which a person ceases to believe in the true God.
2.Apropos (1), it seems to me that you are committing a demarcation fallacy, as if we can’t make a true statement about some quality or quantity unless we can make a true statement about the qualitative or quantitative borderline cases.
According to that position, I can’t tell you that Daddy Warbucks is bald unless I can tell you exactly how few follicles constitute baldness; that Dolly Parton isn’t full-figured unless I can specify the least upper cup-size which constitutes full-figured; that there’s no difference between day and night unless I can specify the nanosecond when dawn begins; that grass isn’t green unless I can tell you how much green shades into green; that there’s no difference between the Pacific ocean and a mud puddle unless I can tell you how many raindrops add up to an ocean; that Shaquille O'Neil isn’t big and tall unless I can tell you how big is big or how tall is tall; that Everest isn’t a mountain rather than a molehill unless I can spell the least upper limit of a mountain, and so on and so forth.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteNot at all. We're talking about the use of a term here. The term "theist" has a standard usage in our language, and you're arguing for a different usage. It's obvious to everyone that there's a huge difference between Muslims and atheists. One of the main differences is that one group believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good being, while the other does not. Hence, I would call the former "theists." But you're classifying all of them as atheists. Your reason is based on the fact that (1) Muslims lack certain true beliefs about God, and (2) possess certain false beliefs about God. I simply pointed out that, if these are the criteria, I'm an atheist and so are you. Hence, if you hope to defend your terminology, you would have to limit the application of the criteria, e.g. "In addition to the traditional attributes of God, theists must also believe in A, B, and C, or they do not qualify as theists. However, beliefs X, Y, and Z are not essential and it's okay to reject these, even though they are true."
I'm just not sure any such distinction would be convincing.
David Wood said:
ReplyDeleteSteve,
Not at all. We're talking about the use of a term here. The term "theist" has a standard usage in our language, and you're arguing for a different usage. It's obvious to everyone that there's a huge difference between Muslims and atheists. One of the main differences is that one group believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good being, while the other does not. Hence, I would call the former "theists." But you're classifying all of them as atheists. Your reason is based on the fact that (1) Muslims lack certain true beliefs about God, and (2) possess certain false beliefs about God. I simply pointed out that, if these are the criteria, I'm an atheist and so are you. Hence, if you hope to defend your terminology, you would have to limit the application of the criteria, e.g. "In addition to the traditional attributes of God, theists must also believe in A, B, and C, or they do not qualify as theists. However, beliefs X, Y, and Z are not essential and it's okay to reject these, even though they are true."
I'm just not sure any such distinction would be convincing.
************
Since you've chosen to ignore most of my arguments, there's not much for me to respond to.
That said, this is not a debate over the meaning of words. Rather, it's a debate over the referent. Denotation rather than connotation.
And even at the level of lexical semantics, everyone does not have the same concept of God. As such, general terms like "theism" are inherently ambiguous.