On dictionaries, movements and rhetorical flourishes 9 Feb 2011 Lately, PZ Myers has been on a tear. He has rejected what he calls “Dictionary Atheism”. I have to admit, he has a way with words. I love it that he can come up with such things as the Courtier’s Reply, his Complexity Design Argument, and so forth. It’s fun to have these things out there. But rhetorical tropes aren’t a substitute for thinking, and I fear they may be becoming that. Here’s his initial discussion: Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You’ve got a discussion going, talking about why you’re an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that “Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.” As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. Dumbasses. Nice piece of spin. How dare people define what they are by agreed meanings. Dictionaries are so… disempowering. Moreover, nobody is a Dictionary Atheist, these guys that PZ hates. A dictionary is one of two things, but not both together: either it defines the ways words are used by the language community, or it prescribes the ways words should be used. The former is like a terrain map, giving you the lay of the land. The latter is like directions to get somewhere, a trip map. The former doesn’t tell you where to go, but tells you what you will encounter should you visit some area, while the latter tells you what to do and how to get there. I think that these two kinds of dictionaries (the latter should really be seen as a Glossary: How Terms Are Used In This Context) are being confused here. It’s like rejecting split infinitives: people either do do it, so suck on it, or they are told they shouldn’t do it, so suck on that. Why is “atheism” any different from any other term? Either it is being defined as one thing (absence of a belief in God) in ordinary language, or it is being touted as something that should be arrived at in a particular manner. If the former, then atheism is what these “dictionary atheists” say it is, and all that necessarily unites them is the absence of something. If the latter, then PZ eliminates all those who get to their atheism in any fashion other than the approved manner. PZ says that an atheist is someone who hold the views they do because of a “scientific attitude”: it’s actually based on a scientific attitude that values evidence and reason, that rejects claims resting solely on authority, and that encourages deeper exploration of the world. What do we call someone who doesn’t believe in God because the humors were all wrong? Or someone who simply intuits it? Or someone who disbelieves in gods because Daddy told them there were none? What do we call someone who denies gods, but abhors any kind of deeper exploration of the world? Now, actually, PZ said that his atheism was so formed and that his reasons are not the definition of atheism, but then he blithely refers to “atheism” as if it were something we can understand the meaning of without these reasons. Indeed, he even gives us some examples (social justice atheists). Why are they and his kind (and the humor-regarding, intuitive, daddy-issue kinds) all grouped together? Because they reject the belief in the existence of gods, that’s why. And that’s all. It is not mere empty stipulation to say that one holds a view, defined as X, without stating the reasons why one holds that view. For example, I believe we should eat more fish. That has a definition, in terms of the dictionary meanings of “eat”, “more” and “fish”. I might think this because God told me to, or because recent research has shown the health benefits, or because I owe a debt to Scrooge McDuck who has many fishing franchises. The meaning of the view is defined by usage as mapped by dictionaries. PZ says If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing: asking why you are a person who does not believe in god is not answered when you reply, “Because I am a person who does not believe in god.” And if you protest when I say that there is more to the practice of atheism than that, insisting that there isn’t just makes you dogmatic and blind. PZ wants atheism to be a prescribed view. It is rational and indicated by science. It is something that improves human life. These are inherent goods, and so the view should be adopted. This is the approach of all believers in particular positions: to take the high ground and assert that their view is mandated by some motivation. But is it really the case that one asserts nothing if you say you are an atheist by referring to the meaning of the term? Of course not. What PZ objects to is the lack of reasons given. And reasons are not, I am afraid, universal. Now, why does he want this foundation? I suspect it is a good motivation: he wants critical thinking and a society based on knowledge. I do too. But it is not smug wanking to simply say “I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, and there’s an end to it”. Not everybody wants to justify everything they think. Philosophers and proponents might, but some people are happy just to say what they think and leave the why private. Is that superficial? Perhaps in a philosophy tutorial. Not in life, I think. Not all the time. If PZ doesn’t want to insist everyone who is an atheist must hold to the reasons he and his ilk think are what supports atheism, then I fail to see what the objection is. You said that you can’t mandate the reasons, so what is left? If he does then I have other problems. But the main problem I have here is that I think this cute rhetoric of his is part of his attempt to ensure that those who Hold The Right View (i.e., “Us”) do so for the Right Reasons, and not the wrong ones. It is ideological purity. And if you reject his approach and those of the rest of the Gnu Atheists, then you are Not-Us. So, as with agnostics, he defines you into his camp anyway (“nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values”, Dumbass). It’s the old tribalism once more. And it’s a pity, because he is a lightning rod for the marginalised and dispossessed Nones, who need to feel normal. So I fail to see why he must marginalise in his turn, for all that it is a very human thing to do. Anyone can make a movement. As Arlo Guthrie showed, all you have to do is sing the chorus along with everyone else. The Alice’s Restaurant Anti-Religion Movement. Just wait until he comes around on the Guitar… Philosophy Rant Religion Truisms Philosophy
Epistemology Homology and analogy 27 Aug 201018 Sep 2017 Last time I noted that phylogenetic classification was based on homologies, which I have elsewhere discussed. Now I want to consider how we might generalise it across all the sciences. And in particular I want to consider the other form of classificatory activity, by analogy, might also generalise. This will… Read More
Evolution Levitt on Fuller 19 Dec 2007 As I mentioned earlier, I love a good book review if it excoriates a stupid book. Norman Levitt, of Rutgers University, has an absolutely lovely piece of critical invective for Steve Fuller’s defense of Intelligent Design here. Fuller is a sociologist philosopher* of science who seems to dislike science intensely,… Read More
Epistemology Pattern recognition: neither deduction nor induction 27 Jan 201328 Jan 2013 It occurs to me as I read Rosenberg’s Philosophy of Science (2005), that we tend in that field to classify epistemic activities into two kinds: induction (about which we have many arguments as to its warrantability) and deduction (with many arguments about its applicability). But I believe there is something else that… Read More
I’ve always found that the grab bag of terms that are meant to narrow down specific reasons for (or perspectives on) atheism—anti-theism, non-theism, whatever—are only useful as provisional shorthands for talking about the issues, not as flags for self-identification. If people come to identify with discrete bags of reasons or justifications rather than the position itself, it narrows the complexity of discourse about the issue down to a partisan mess.
That’s just the kind of ideological absolutist, know it all, agnostic propaganda we’ve come to expect from those who knowingly claim not to know. Oh, wait….I’m with you. Didn’t get p.z. Push for good think. I thought he was a broad church atheist. Still he’s always worth a read.
John, I gotta find that you’re wrong on this one, and that you’re misquoting PZ rather blatantly. Especially here: PZ says that an atheist is someone who hold the views they do because of a “scientific attitude” On the contrary! In PZ’s “why are you an atheist” post, he is careful to distinguish between “atheism” (i.e. atheism in general) vs “my atheism” (i.e. his particular brand of atheism). Regarding that thing about a scientific attitude that you quoted out of context, he is absolutely explicit that he is talking about the latter. Here it is in context: “there is more to MY atheism than simple denial of one claim; it’s actually based on a scientific attitude” Followed, shortly after, by “Now I don’t claim that my values are part of the definition of atheism” — which appears to be the very thing you’ve accused him of doing. PZ’s use of the word “my”, which you apparently overlooked, negates the entire paragraph beginning “What do we call someone who“. It’s irrelevant, because he never claimed to be speaking for all True Atheists. There’s other stuff I disagree with too, but let’s get the elephant out of the way before pulling quills out of the hedgehog.
Fleshy, I gotta find that you are wrong about my piece, and that you misread it. I actually said he was doing that. On both points. Re-read what I wrote. There’s a Very Clever Trick in the prose.
There’s another sort of atheist that you miss out: the never-been-bothered atheist. In families and communities without much religion and without religious pressures, a lot of people are brought up without attending church / mosque / temple /synagogue / pasta bar, and (I suspect) many may never feel any urge to go become religious, but equally feel no need to justify that, either to themselves or to others. It’s just something that does not concern them, like parachute jumping or writing a novel. Not everybody is a philosopher. Not everybody wants to be a philosopher.
That is, I think, the type of atheist I am trying to defend. If I were an atheist, and if I never had a teenage conversion and mid-20s deconversion, that’s exactly the type of atheist I’d be.
I have always been somewhat conflicted as to whether to call myself an atheist or an agnostic. On a daily basis I tend to be much more of an agnostic, the kind Sam C describes who was raised in a community and family and friends without much religion, so I’m basically apathetic towards a god. But I’m also a scientist so when I do think about a god it definitely doesn’t make sense or fit with my worldview. The only time I fall into the atheist camp is when someone comes along and starts trying to convince me about “Their God”, then I become a strong atheist. As Dawkins said “We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has believed in, some of us just go one god further.” As a scientist the whole idea that people “have/do” believe in multiple gods leads me to the atheist camp. The whole Judeo/Christian/Muslim prophet concept always makes me consider how that legions of people ended following the “teaching” of people who in our modern scientific society we would diagnose as schizophrenic.
So, if the definition of atheism is your desire to approach the world and develop your world viewed based on science evidence and reason, what do you call the scientists who feel science has led them to God? One example is Francis Collins who has said the more he studies science the more convinced he is of a God. Or the famous logical Kurt Godel whose rigorously proved incompleteness theorems convinced him there must be something like a God. Are such men atheists by PZ’s definition?
I try to acquire knowledge by being appropriately skeptical, thinking rationally, and basing my conclusions on evidence wherever possible. It’s what I call the scientific way of knowing. I don’t believe in astrology or the efficacy of homeopathy because these beliefs conflict with the scientific way of knowing. I don’t believe in the tooth fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, or Santa Clause because there’s no evidence that supports their existence. I don’t believe in Zeus, Gitchi Manitou, or Krishna for the same reason. In fact, nobody has convinced me that I should believe in any of the gods. Only one of these non-beliefs has a name—atheism—but they are otherwise indistinguishable. They result from my desire to use science as a reliable way of acquiring truth and knowledge. I do not know for certain that homeopathy is ineffective or that Zeus does not exist but those conclusion seem far more probable than the alternatives. The dictionary definition—”Atheism means you lack a belief in gods.”—seems perfectly descriptive of my position. It’s analogous to, “A-toothfairyism means you lack a belief in the tooth fairy.” What’s wrong with that? John Wilkins is also an atheist by this definition.
On my reading of PZ’s post, he seemed to be implying that I am not an agnostic and not an atheist. But I am certainly not a theist. I guess I could go back to calling myself “non-religious”. Somehow, I had thought that one of the aims of gnu atheists was to have the non-religious counted on the atheist side of the ledger. His post seemed counter-productive to me.
PZ: And if you protest when I say that there is more to the practice of atheism than that, insisting that there isn’t just makes you dogmatic and blind. I’m a bit surprised that no one seized upon that word “practice” in the quote. Most of PZ’s minions take umbrage when theists call atheism a kind of religion. “Oh no”, the minions exclaim. “It is a position, not a practice!” Well, I’m perfectly happy to have the folks like me who simply take a position keep title to the word “atheism”. But then what do we call people like PZ who want to practice something? “Positive atheists”? “Counter theists”? “A-wholes”?
Is there a reason PZ et al don’t like the label, humanist? Is it too touchy-feely or something? It’s funny, I finally got around to reading Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith, which I assumed was just going to be another exercise in goal post maneuvering, but that actually makes a good case for the faithiness of atheists. PZ Myers sure as hell has an “Ultimate Concern”, and this merry dance of his concerning a word with an otherwise fairly well grounded literary pedigree supports that view.
Is there a reason PZ et al don’t like the label, humanist? Is it too touchy-feely or something? PZ doesn’t mind being called a Humanist. I do, because I cannot accept the Humanist Manifesto. I am an atheist but not a Humanist.
“Humanist” has much deeper resonances than the American Humanist Society’s Manifesto. I like to say I am an Erasmian humanist. Erasmus is, after all, the guy who wrote: Homo homini aut deus aut lupus.
He gladly accepted a “Humanist of the Year” award. I don’t think he would do that if he didn’t like the term.
Ha ha… I see you’re seeing the rigid ideologue behind the mask of affable professor. Good for you, John. Rather than deal with the hypocrisy as Atheist Pope and his declaration of what a good, ‘right thinking’ atheist is, I’d deal with it in an easier venue. For example, they way he conducts himself vis his pro-choice position. There is something he has, over the years, defended in a very absolutist, no possible way he can see the points of others, manner. As rigid and inflexible as Ken Ham or Kent Hovind defend their creationism. And in the defense of his stances he exhibits a heavy reliance on dictionary/scientific definitions, well, that and a lot of turpitude and bile he spews at those who fail to adhere to his rigid position… His actions are clearest when one of his Internet combatants steps over one of his pet peeves and calls a fetus a ‘baby…’ Pope Myers doesn’t like that… Not one bit… And he will let you know what the worm you are with your sloppy thinking/English/definition skills…
It’s likely because definitions matter to him, and he is impatient with sloppy thinking. A foetus is not a baby. It is not yet born. If he thinks that his students should pay attention to such details, why is it so ridiculous for him to correct anyone else? I read him as having said he hates people who define for him and other atheists what atheism is, limiting us to the dictionary definition. I don’t read him as saying he hates people who choose to accept only the dictionary definition, the doctrinaire atheists who limit it for others. I think his critics on this issue have it backwards, accusing him of a “nae a true atheist” fallacy.
“the never-been-bothered atheist. In families and communities without much religion and without religious pressures, a lot of people are brought up without attending church / mosque / temple /synagogue / pasta bar, and (I suspect) many may never feel any urge to go become religious, but equally feel no need to justify that, either to themselves or to others. It’s just something that does not concern them, like parachute jumping or writing a novel.” That would be me. As 99% of the people I see day to day hold much the same perspective as myself its not a subject for discussion, unless on rare occasions like a few months ago the pope turns up in town, blocks off all the streets and completly disrupts our life and then suggests that we have some relationship with Nazi’s. Never thought of it as an issue until I came across this endless debate. The thing that strikes me is how small the gap is between someone like P.Z Meyers and myself is, yet how big a gulf exists. Politicaly my views are very similar. I have no faith and when P.Z attacks individual acts of evangelical lunacy in the States with his distinct way with words I do not find it problematic. Its the wider points made about religion I can’t accept as they contradict my own understanding and education on this subject. Its sad to see the way debate gets so heated at times but I feel tribal ties with anyone that holds left of center political beliefs and promotes the importance of a secular society and don’t like to see such heated public division when their appears to be so much common ground. I think Johns call for civility here is important.
Here is a good take by Jesse Galef at the “Friendly Atheist” site: The need to get out of our head is particularly telling with word definitions. (I share this pet peeve with PZ, although I think we resolve it differently). Just because I have a particular word-meaning connection doesn’t mean that everyone else has it. Words are a human invention and gain meaning through shared convention, not divine edict or dictionary authority. How many times have we run into people who argue that the word ‘religion’ means “a system of morals” or “a community with rituals” or “a belief relating to a creator”? If they don’t have the same word-meaning connection, there’s a good chance they’ll be confused when they think you’re saying “I reject all systems of morals!” Sure, you wanted them to understand that you reject beliefs about supernatural creators – but it didn’t come across that way. I think that one thing people need to remember is that when it comes to communications, the receiver doesn’t have the same exact perspective as the sender. What makes sense to you, doesn’t necessarily follow for me as automatically because I am going to have a different perception. I think there needs to be a deep breath taken on PZ’s objection to “dictionary atheists.” I think he has spurred a great conversation if there were less of a knee-jerk reaction to it.
Classification is at best an artificial device and at worst an artifice – even physicists and mathematicians come to a grinding halt with quantization. I can’t help thinking of pigeon holes. http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/11/25/16-fun-applications-of-the-pigeonhole-principle/
I sympathize with PZ’s annoyance at people trying to define atheism for him. I, for one, am annoyed by him trying to define atheism for me, so I know exactly how he feels. I am an atheist because I do not believe in God. I decided to be an atheist for the usual reasons about wanting to believe only the truth and not finding any good arguments for God. This is all easy enough to express without getting mixed up in definitional issues. PZ seems to have a problem with people misunderstanding the question “Why are you an atheist?”. When he asks it, he’s not asking how they fit into the definition of atheism, but rather how they came to be atheists. This is a legitimate gripe, since it’s pretty clear that the question is not a request for a definition. It does not, however, warrant a rambling, incoherent blog entry in which he pushes for an unreasonably thick notion of atheism for the sake of… What? Politics? Looking better than the other guys?
Now, why does he want this foundation? I suspect it is a good motivation: he wants critical thinking and a society based on knowledge. I do too. But it is not smug wanking to simply say “I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, and there’s an end to it”. Not everybody wants to justify everything they think. Philosophers and proponents might, but some people are happy just to say what they think and leave the why private. Is that superficial? Perhaps in a philosophy tutorial. Not in life, I think. Not all the time. I think this is disregarding the fact that PZ confused(in my opinion anyway) the dictionary definition of a-theism with the reasons why someone is an atheist, and instead made up this strawman argument of atheists who might answer the question of why are you an atheist with “because I don’t believe in gods”. It is a great goal, an ought if you like, that atheists arrive at their position after some heavy thinking and weighing up of arguments, or that atheists are rational, reasoning folks. But as I pointed out in those Pharyngula threads ad nauseam, that does not apply to a lot of atheists, especially outside the US, atheists arrived at their atheism for a variety of reasons, and some of them did not have to be reasoned at all. I don’t have to reject every single fringe religious cult manually, to be a worthy atheist. It was a weird post.
I didn’t get that PZ post either. His demand that we be able to explain why we’re atheists actually seems anti-scientific to me: it’s very easy for people to come up with self-serving narratives that explain their behavior and beliefs instead of really thinking critically about themselves. No amount of rational, skeptical thought can falsify those narratives, because they’re based on highly unreliable memories and perceptions. I personally am the type of atheist that Sam C describes. I like PZ and generally agree with him, but I don’t see myself as a “practicing atheist” or as a member of the Skeptics.
It’s not just PZ. There is a vein of doublethink coursing through a sizable fraction of the skeptic community. Here’s Catherine Daveny, “Here are some questions atheists are frequently asked: What do you actually believe in? Truth.” Jings. Talk about raising the bar. Apparently simply putting stock in probability and hoping for the best is weak Old Atheism. Certainty is now sacrosanct. But she then says, “The ”atheism is a religion” question is best answered by the Non-Stamp Collector, a YouTube animator who says: “Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby, off is a TV channel or bald is a hair colour”.” And, conveniently, we’re just back to the dictionary definition. It’s not a positive belief system after all, and certainly not one that is practiced and exercises a set of “values” (as PZ apparently believes). This quick footwork with definitions is quite reminiscent of that perfected by Christian apologists, imho (“How can you not believe in God if we don’t know what God is?”) Another thing. Wilkins, you aptly mentioned The Courtier’s Reply in the post above. It seems that a variant of this is being peddled by the very group that coined the term. That is, If you haven’t given it considerable thought, pondered its every dimension in depth, encountered it through lengthy argument, taken it on the walkabout as it were to the farthest limits of reason itself… well… then you cannot barely claim to know what atheism is really all about can you, brother?. “It’s the old tribalism once more.” It is that, indeed.
DSKS, for what it’s worth, I believe in truth too, but I don’t mean certainty. “Belief in truth” can mean the commitment to keeping faith with our best methodologies and our most trustworthy current understanding, and to speaking the best truth we know to one another. Truth need not be a fixed collection of certain facts (however valuable such a thing is when we can manage it), but rather the best understanding we have yet achieved, along with a sincere commitment to revise and improve it when the opportunity arises.