An atheist is usually defined as either (a) someone who has no belief in God or (b) someone who believes God doesn’t exist. (Passive vs. active atheism.)
Sharon Welch defines her own atheism as someone who does not desire God.
Then there are those of us who desire a God we do not believe in.
Who is the atheist and who isn’t?
UPDATE: More on atheism from Debitage.
If you don’t believe in gods, you’re an atheist. You can be a crystal-healing, reincarnation-believing, psychic-reading phrenologist, but if you don’t believe in gods you are an atheist. Other atheists will probably boggle at your collection of weird, irrational beliefs, but it doesn’t change anything regarding your label.
This is the first time I’ve heard of atheism being based on “desire.” I’d have to listen to Sharon Welch and those others explain what they mean by that before I could say with any kind of certainty, but for now, I’ll say that desiring a god without believing in any probably qualifies one as an atheist. I personally wish there were gods who gave you super-cool superpowers for serving them (like in Everyquest), but I don’t think they actually exist, nor do they have any relevance to my life.
Actually, I take that back, I HAVE heard of atheism being based on desire, except that it is usually a misrepresentation from theists. They accuse atheists of saying they don’t believe because they don’t want to be “held accountable.”
Do you think Welch’s take on atheism is legitimate?
Is it Atheism if one believed that there was no god (past), but that the universe’s developmental arc is creating/growing/nurturing one who will be?
It’s a perspective I toyed around with in conversation with an Atheist UU philosopher (trained and practicing, yes; a PhD in philosophy), and couldn’t quite decide what it was….
I think Welch is onto something in looking at more than beliefs (characterized as propositions) and including emotions, like desire. But you’re correct that those who desire a god that they don’t believe in, or those who don’t desire a god they DO believe in (I know someone who is in philosophy and attracted to maltheism) makes the definition fuzzy.
Course, I think she’s okay with fuzzy definitions, and that’s part of her overall project.
What I’m taking from your comments, Ogre and CK, is that the traditional definition of theism as propositional monotheism—with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god—isn’t all that helpful. To stay with my penchant for trademarks, we could call it Theism™.
Very few people this side of Islam, I suspect, actually subscribe to Theism™. Officially, of course, Christians do. Traditionally, Jews do too. But in practice I haven’t seen it. It’s usually Theism™ minus this piece or that piece.
I guess what I’m saying is that, in practice, theism is a fuzzy thing. And so definitions of atheism are going to have to be fuzzy too.
Dunno… once definitions get fuzzy, I usually figure it’s time to compost them.
I guess it depends on what it is helpful for. It’s helpful in some forms of philosophical discourse, definitely. But if we’re talking about how people live, then Welch’s definition might help.
Oh, and in terms of practice, I think that going to a cognitive science understanding of the way the mind functions is helpful (i.e. Pascal Boyer et al)–don’t know yet where Welch’s definition fits in there, but I have the hunch that it could…although she probably wouldn’t go that route?
I don’t think its useful because it plays into the theist mischaracterizations of atheism that I mentioned above.
Maybe someday, if supernaturalism is consigned to the dustbin of history, the divide will be between those who want to apply the term “god” to things like “relationships between people” or “love,” and those who don’t, and then atheists will be those who don’t desire to use the term that way.
But until then, it just encourages theist misrepresentation. Atheism is and should continue to be about whether one believes or not.
From John McCarthy
An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.
McCarthy’s definition is fundamentally rude. No one but stupid people believe in werewolves. (Or at least that’s the point of McCarthy’s definition.)
A good definition of atheism won’t be condescending.
I am a little wary of attempts to fuzz the meaning of atheist. especially when its theists doing the fuzzing. some people just don’t believe in god or the supernatural at all – is this wrong? unacceptable?
I don’t consider myself a theist or an atheist. (Perhaps a religious naturalist with a bent for panentheism.) I don’t really have a dog in that fight anymore.
I guess there are two things I object to. One is smug atheism, which is how I see the McCarthy definition. Atheists aren’t smarter than the rest of us. If they compare theism to stupidity, they’re being rude and don’t deserve a hearing.
My other objection is that atheists only get to define atheism as much as theists get to define theism. Both go back dozens of centuries. The definitions have shifted over time, and they will shift more still. Someone considering themselves an atheist doesn’t earn them the right to define the term. Nor does it earn them the right to define (away) theism. These words belong to everyone. Atheists don’t get to define the terms to their own liking unless everyone else does too.
The way it often plays out (in online atheism anyway) is that an atheist will define theism as belief in the supernatural. That’s certainly true of some forms of theism. But not all. Maybe not even most.
Making the supernatural move is a straw man move. Folks can not believe in the supernatural and still be theists, but that’s harder to argue against. I just want atheists to admit that there’s more to it than werewolves and tooth fairies.
I’m not sure how you don’t consider your description of your beliefs to not be theistic, Chance (when pantheism means “all-in-God” according to Wikipedia). Maybe I’m just not understanding properly at all, but to my ears it’s like hearing a person say, “I’m a vegetarian, but I eat cows” because they’ve somehow expanded the meaning of vegetables to include cows.
That’s what it sounds like to me. Please help me to understand!
The problem I have with trying to expand the meaning of words like “atheist” is that it just makes a discussion about theism and atheism that much harder. Shouldn’t we be striving to make words that actually describe what people believe? As opposed to words that describe so much that they eventually become meaningless?
Correction: My first sentence is way too confusing. Let me rephrase:
Chance, how can you consider your beliefs as described to not be theistic, when panentheism means “all-in-God” (according to Wikipedia).
[…] Comments hafidha sofia on Find the atheisthafidha sofia on Find the atheistchutney on Find the atheisthafidha sofia on Find the atheistchutney […]
I keep thinking that Welch’s definition, invoking desire, could also come off sounding like the definition given by the Old Testament:
“The fool says in his heart there is no god” which is about belief and desire at the same time. And I suppose it is also fundamentally rude.
For what it’s worth, my partner and I have this conversation sometimes. She would call things like ‘love’, ‘human relationships’, ‘the universe’, etc. “god” and I disagree. I believe in those things and their value, but am still an atheist, for all intents and purposes. She doesn’t see why I am uncomfortable with god language, if it’s put into that kind of context. And I don’t see why it’s necessary, if put into that context.
Don’t know if that helps the conversation or not….
I agree with you that it’s not necessary. But I like it anyway. :-)
Yeah, that verse from Proverbs is kinda rude, and I’ll bet that one verse has set off a whole bunch of atheists. I remember using that verse in arguments when I was a teenager. It’s no place to start a conversation, so I can’t blame atheists for grousing that.
Chutney: I have no problem with theists defining themselves however they like. If I may be permitted to editorialize for a second, I suspect that the problem is that, contrary to what you say, many, if not most, believers in America still believe in the anthropomorphic god (the one with feelings and such)http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=41678
That god is kind of embarrassing, and its embarassing when those believers are the face of religion. When atheists debunk belief in that kind of god, its a reminder that one is using words like “god” with supernatural baggage, and it raises uncomfortable questions .
Personally, I find theists who claim not to believe in the supernatural to be easier to argue against, not harder;-) However, that doesn’t make the supernatural move a strawman, because those embarassing supernatural believers are very much the face of religion.
Isn’t it embarrassing to say that other peoples’ beliefs are embarrassing? Or at least rude? I think we’re back to atheists being condescending.