We have two distinct meanings of the word “atheist”.
Historically, the word “atheist” referred to someone who believes there is no god. Again, historically, the word “agnostic” was used to denote someone who chooses not to take any position on the issue.
The modern meaning of “atheist” (or at least, the meaning often—although by no means exclusively—encountered these days) is broader. This second meaning indicates someone who is “not a theist”, that is, someone who does not share the theist’s belief in some deity. The “default position”, as many have argued in many different threads in this forum itself. And you have the categories within this broad group (of “atheist”) : soft, hard, positive, negative, all that. And “agnosticism”, in this classification, addresses a whole different dimension (of knowledge, as opposed to belief).
One argument made for the latter classification is that it is more intuitive, as well as more “correct” (that is, their meanings can be directly adduced or derived from their word roots). Not that we don’t have words that today carry meanings very different from their etymological roots, but there can be no gainsaying that the words “atheist” and “agnostic”, taken literally (per their etymology), do carry the meanings that the second (“modern”) classification vests them with.
Following that argument (about etymology), then, here is my question : Would the atheist (in so far as he or she is an atheist) be justified in having any view at all on “woo” that does not necessarily involve deities?
There are traditions that emphasize the (alleged) experiential aspect of their “practices”. (One obvious example would be some Theravadin Buddhist traditions. We can also think of elements within decidedly theistic traditions like Christianity and Islam, which are themselves not necessarily deistic. I refer to the [allegedly] experiential elements within Christian and Sufi traditions.)
Certainly all of this is “woo”, all of it, since this is stuff that no one has actually proved objectively. Nevertheless, “woo” that is non-deistic in nature, would that be outside the purview of “atheism” per se?
(And to be clear : I’m not plugging for this kind of non-deistic woo. I’m merely trying to be fully clear about what it means to be an atheist, per this second broader definition.)
The atheist may still reject such woo, of course, since the atheist is often/usually a skeptic and an rationalist : but would it be right to say that the statement “I am an atheist” says nothing at all about my position as regards non-deistic “woo”? (Just as to say “I am an atheist” says nothing directly at all about my position as regards the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as regards the existence of leprechauns.)
(To repeat : I’m going here by the “modern” and broader usage of the word “atheist”, as opposed to its older, historical meaning—which historical meaning is also, I know, the current meaning for very many people, but that narrower definition is not what I’m referring to at this time.)
P.S. Hi all! New member, just started posting today. Hope I've not messed up by posting in the wrong sub-forum! ("General Skepticism" doesn't seem quite apt, because this is "just" semantics I guess -- not that semantics and words and definitions are necessarily unimportant -- but I couldn't find any other sub-forum where which might be a better fit).
Historically, the word “atheist” referred to someone who believes there is no god. Again, historically, the word “agnostic” was used to denote someone who chooses not to take any position on the issue.
The modern meaning of “atheist” (or at least, the meaning often—although by no means exclusively—encountered these days) is broader. This second meaning indicates someone who is “not a theist”, that is, someone who does not share the theist’s belief in some deity. The “default position”, as many have argued in many different threads in this forum itself. And you have the categories within this broad group (of “atheist”) : soft, hard, positive, negative, all that. And “agnosticism”, in this classification, addresses a whole different dimension (of knowledge, as opposed to belief).
One argument made for the latter classification is that it is more intuitive, as well as more “correct” (that is, their meanings can be directly adduced or derived from their word roots). Not that we don’t have words that today carry meanings very different from their etymological roots, but there can be no gainsaying that the words “atheist” and “agnostic”, taken literally (per their etymology), do carry the meanings that the second (“modern”) classification vests them with.
Following that argument (about etymology), then, here is my question : Would the atheist (in so far as he or she is an atheist) be justified in having any view at all on “woo” that does not necessarily involve deities?
There are traditions that emphasize the (alleged) experiential aspect of their “practices”. (One obvious example would be some Theravadin Buddhist traditions. We can also think of elements within decidedly theistic traditions like Christianity and Islam, which are themselves not necessarily deistic. I refer to the [allegedly] experiential elements within Christian and Sufi traditions.)
Certainly all of this is “woo”, all of it, since this is stuff that no one has actually proved objectively. Nevertheless, “woo” that is non-deistic in nature, would that be outside the purview of “atheism” per se?
(And to be clear : I’m not plugging for this kind of non-deistic woo. I’m merely trying to be fully clear about what it means to be an atheist, per this second broader definition.)
The atheist may still reject such woo, of course, since the atheist is often/usually a skeptic and an rationalist : but would it be right to say that the statement “I am an atheist” says nothing at all about my position as regards non-deistic “woo”? (Just as to say “I am an atheist” says nothing directly at all about my position as regards the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as regards the existence of leprechauns.)
(To repeat : I’m going here by the “modern” and broader usage of the word “atheist”, as opposed to its older, historical meaning—which historical meaning is also, I know, the current meaning for very many people, but that narrower definition is not what I’m referring to at this time.)
P.S. Hi all! New member, just started posting today. Hope I've not messed up by posting in the wrong sub-forum! ("General Skepticism" doesn't seem quite apt, because this is "just" semantics I guess -- not that semantics and words and definitions are necessarily unimportant -- but I couldn't find any other sub-forum where which might be a better fit).
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1OTUPxr
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire