I think I get your point, Marty. Allow me to respond. For the sauce, we know it is something that people do. Could it possibly arise as the result of a natural process? I’m not sure we can exclude the possibility, but it’s almost unimaginable. Every similar thing we know of, pots of soup, stew, gruel, etc., are also the work of people. We don’t have anything to show that basic cooking ingredients and metals can naturally assemble themselves into conveniently edible packages of food over time.
As for first life, we have nothing to directly compare to. There has been some work that shows possible pathways for self-replicating molecules to develop. We do know that life has shown itself capable of evolving (sorry, not sure if you accept that or not) from very simple organisms to complex ones. I don’t find it hard to imagine that a natural process could get the ball of life rolling.
One thing always comes to my mind when I consider this question, however. For argument’s sake–I don’t think this is really possible–let’s say we get to a point where we identify a pathway for molecules to begin assembling into more complex replicating forms, with the same confidence that we have in evolution. Would the story be over at that point? Far from it. Where did the molecules come from? Did they assemble naturally? Etc. etc. That’s always going to be the governing question–where did matter ultimately come from? Now that is something that I can’t imagine happening naturally at the deepest level. So my vague belief that life could possibly start naturally doesn’t really change anything in the big picture. To be clear, it’s equally hard for me to imagine God happening naturally It’s all a mystery at this point, to me, and I would argue in general.
Well, you’re asserting that there is a God, and I’m saying I don’t believe it. Hence, atheism. It makes sense to me. I recognize that I ultimately don’t know and I am agnostic in that sense. But, things being as they are in this world, we do need a word to reflect that we don’t believe in your positive assertion. The great majority of people who hold this position use the word “atheism” to describe it. If your view must hold sway and this word cannot be used for us, then we’re just going to need another word–the reality of our position is not going to change. “Agnostic” won’t cut it–we’re not simply saying we don’t know. Some atheists outright assert that God does not exist, for sure. “Strong atheism” is the most common term to describe this position (and “weak atheism” for us, booo )
So just because you don’t see something form there is no reason to believe a deity did it, right?
A-without theism-belief in deities. A-thesim is without a belief in deities. That’s it. Atheism is a lack of belief while agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. They are answers to two different questions.
"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. . .
Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know." American Atheists
I’m fine with opinions as long as they aren’t presented as supported science.
So what makes a supernatural origin of life compelling?
The Discovery Institute is the leading organization for the Intelligent Design movement. Nearly all of the ideas and people you are citing come from the Discovery Institute. I don’t see how you can divorce the DI from ID.
Gee, John, I’d be thrilled to start referring to people who hold your position as “weak atheists.” … Not sure most of 'em would appreciate it!
But you bring up what I’m after. The word is being used in two ways and needs a qualifier.
What’s missing from the new definition is any willingness to defend an affirmative position that there is no god, in spite of the fact that the Greek words mean exactly that. So you don’t believe in one, but you don’t “believe in” (that is, won’t defend affirmatively) “no god” either. Sounds pretty “don’t knowish” to me!
I see where people are getting this from: “I’m not theist, so I’m a-theist.” But unless someone holds that there indeed is no god, then it seems to me they are agnostic, even if they prefer the call themselves atheist.
Maybe I just need to start asking people if they are a strong atheist or a weak atheist!
I can understand why a theist who is feeling feisty would prefer to deal with strong atheists though. About the only thing harder than ‘proving’ God is proving no God. Those who believe in God probably have a better idea what it is they believe in than those who don’t.
Probably the only atheists who feel sure they understand what the God is which they do not believe in are ex-theists. Most likely they’re also the only atheists feeling feisty enough to want to argue about it.
If we’re being specific in philosophical discussion, sure. In general, it doesn’t really matter too much. We don’t believe in God. The similarities outweigh the differences.
What’s missing from the new definition is any willingness to defend an affirmative position that there is no god
We aren’t adopting that position, so why would have a willingness to defend it?
in spite of the fact that the Greek words mean exactly that.
Do they? I don’t think they’re that specific. As I said, it makes sense to me, but YMMV.
Indeed I don’t know if there’s “no god”. There are a lot of things about the ultimate condition of the totality of reality that I don’t know–I’m humble that way Also, proving a negative is a notable problem.
What I do say is that I do not believe in any of the gods I have ever heard people claim to exist. I do have a willingness to defend that if you care to hear it In general, I don’t think people have any idea of the truth of this stuff, and religious ideas are constructs. But I do believe there’s more going on than that which we can now ascertain. I don’t think it’s likely to have much or anything in common with people’s ideas about gods.
Well, I call myself an agnostic atheist. That’s another label (and a lot nicer than “weak atheist”!) I take both halves seriously.
A lot of atheists are familiar with these terms, and you should get some good responses!
Atheism would then be “without a belief in deities”. It is simply a lack of belief, not a belief that deities don’t exist. There are some atheists that also state that deities don’t exist, but what all atheists have in common is a lack of belief. I don’t see why an atheist needs to defend the position that deities don’t exist if that is not a position they hold.
There are agnostic christians, so I don’t see how that works. Agnosticism deals with what we know while atheism deals with what we believe.
A better option is to not assume that they are strong atheists until they take that position. It’s a bit like not assuming a theist is a christian.
Those details were focused on abiogenesis, as far as I could tell. If you believe in a supernatural origin of life because of religious faith, that’s fine. I’m not here to tell you what to believe. If you think your time is better spent responding to others, that is just fine as well.
This all seems correct to me too. But what may be providing the cross-currents here is a difference between technically correct (or historical) definitions, and common usage of the word (sort of like how ‘proof’ is almost never being used in its technical sense, so much as its being shorthand for ‘evidenced’). So by the definition T shows here, babies and for that matter, rocks, are all atheists because they lack the requisite belief. Yet we all recognize that as silly too because there is at least an implied requirement that we are speaking of agents with the capacity for considered belief or unbelief. But already here the waters begin to muddy. There is no word for people who refuse to believe in parakeets from Pluto; and for very good reason: Plutonian parakeets has never been a category for consideration on anybody’s horizon. So we don’t go to the trouble of creating labels for ourselves to make sure we aren’t mistakenly thought to believe such a thing. But this is not at all the case with theism which is not only a live category of consideration, but has now a long history of being quite a dominant category (and is still quite dominant today as I’m sure most atheists can attest to.) So very few thinking, interacting adults in our present world can pretend that these categories have escaped their consideration. And it seems quite reasonable to me to think that while such unbelievers are indeed under no compulsion to prove there is no god --and indeed may be quite willing to let the matter rest as a mere ‘unproven, but still possible if improbable’ category; nonetheless it is also quite reasonable in everyday usage to expect that somebody who troubles to identify themselves as an atheist has at least formed an opinion (weak or strong) about which way they lean on the matter. They have every right, of course, to refrain from voicing it as a positive assertion (thereby in need of evidence). But would you agree that the stereotype that “atheism” does imply “considered opinion” is a largely accurate one?
Because that is how the word is used in public discourse – which is what ultimately drives the evolution of culturally-accepted definitions for words.
There are also agnostic christians who believe in God but are still agnostics.
There is also the interesting history of Gnosticism and the early christian church.
Needless to say, it can be a confusing topic given the history of theism and atheism and how all of these groups have described themselves throughout history. I don’t think it is unfair to point out that these terms were used differently in the past, but like all human endeavours, things change. Atheism has looked in on itself and found a few nuances which we are now trying to communicate to the larger public.
If nothing else, I hope people realize that atheism is more than just Dawkins and Hitchens. Atheists are not a homogeneous group of people that enforce a set doctrine that all atheists must follow.
Let me try to clarify some things for you. There are two ways of looking at God, one is through the eyes of philosophy and the other through the eyes of theology. Theists, by which we generally mean Christians, see God through the eyes of faith or theology. That means they see God as a Personal Being, as opposed to Impersonal as many philosophers see God, Deus as opposed to Theos.
Also philosophy is based on knowledge while theology is based on belief while means decision and commitment. Philosophy means one knows or does not know that God exists. Theism for the theist means that one has a personal commitment to God. The opposite for non-believers as @John_Dalton said is atheism, e3ven though he does not see the issue as black and white.
As @MarkD said theists might have some knowledge questions about exactly Who is and hoe God works, but the believe and know that God is.
I think that there should be a place for agnostics who believe in God, but are not Christians, Jews or members of any other faith. .
I agree with much of what you write. Tom Hanks’ character in “Angels and Demons” had this line in response to the Pope asking him if he was a believer (paraphrasing): “God did not bless me with the gift of faith”. I don’t know why, but that line has always stuck with me.
I also think there is a difference between what we know and what we believe. This is why agnosticism and atheism deserve to be treated separately instead of being put on the same scale. I really don’t think agnosticism can be treated as a weaker version of atheism. There’s more to it than that.
In essence, we reject your theology–that part is pretty black and white. The big picture is not black and white for me, and I recognize that you and others may well come to a different conclusion than me about things. I won’t be telling you you’re wrong in your commitment, but by the same token, I don’t feel obligated to adopt it.
I don’t see why not, but it would seem that they lack any meaningful theology in that case, and perhaps would be left with some kind of deism.
Granted. It isn’t that it was never considered in most cases, I suspect. More a matter of not finding the possibility well enough evidenced as well as the exact definition of God always seeming to be hard to pin down, at least to my liking.
In most cases yes, but opinions may vary on how much consideration is warranted. For myself it has always seemed necessary to explain why the idea of God has been so widespread for so long and invested with so much importance. But to answer that question has led me to think more about the quality of human experience and how that supports God belief. Since I think the appeal and value of God belief can be accounted for in this way, I see no reason to consider the supernatural as a possibility. That doesn’t mean I reject any notion of God, only a supernatural one. If God is anything at all, I believe He must be a co-product of consciousness. The idea appeals to me and, I find, has some of the same life enhancing qualities as religiosity without the contamination of empirical understanding, what is sometimes referred to as cognitive dissonance, I think must accompany any acceptance of the supernatural.
I’m not really sure what that makes me. Possibly deluded? But if so, I’m still enjoying the perspective it gives me and I don’t believe it can be shown to be mistaken yet. As a point in its favor, it could very well be fasifiolbe eventually though how such a finding could be made is not at all clear to me now.
That these terms are loaded with historical freight is no understatement. We’ve pointed out to each other in long past threads how during Roman times Christians themselves were called atheists because to the Brutus-on-the-street, the weirdos who reject 99.9% and the ones who reject 100% of the gods can safely be lumped together.
It’s all a mystery at this point, to me, and I would argue in general.
… Not sure most of 'em would appreciate it!