More from Humpty Dumpty
More of the old let’s redefine atheism so that we can declare it illegitimate ploy. This one just runs and runs and runs.
In practice, it is possible to reject religion with a reforming, missionary zeal. This of course is [Grayling’s] position, and that of Dawkins. There is indeed a faith dimension to their non-belief. By contrast it is possible to reject religious belief in a less ardent way: this is known as agnosticism. What distinguishes the atheist from the agnostic is his belief that religion ought to be eliminated, that the world would be radically better off without it. Atheism entails a certain narrative about historical progress: we can move to a new and better age once we have dispensed with superstition. The prospect of a future without religion is good news. The atheist is an evangelist, a communicator of the true cause that will set humanity free. By contrast the agnostic is reluctant to condemn religion as intrinsically bad; he sees it as too complex and contradictory to generalize about.
Yes, certainly. And cucumbers are heavy orange rectangular things that are useful for building walls or heaving through atheists’ windows, and sailboats are fiercely hot little green things you can put in beans or stew or atheists’ eyes, and winter is that very stocky bald guy in the red jumpsuit over there who might be an atheist by the looks of him. In other words, what a ridiculous display of free-association. All those things fit the description of some atheists and agnostics, no doubt, but they’re certainly not part of the meanings of the words. Back to argument school for Theo Hobson.
Theo Hobson has not read Grayling with sufficient attention. Grayling does not discount ” . . .evidence of religion’s resurgence: this must be an optical illusion, he says, . . .”
To the contrary, Grayling describes this apparent resurgence of religion as the convulsive flailing of a corpse. Arguments are not (I hope!) defeated by misrepresentation.
Theo Hobson is a twit. He has never yet posted a coherent argument on CiF, so why should he start now? Anyone whose mission in life seems to be to make Anglicanism cool and postmodern can be safely ignored. Well, ought to be able to be, which I guess is not enough sometimes.
I have replied to the comment-is-free article, and deliberately called Hobson a liar. It has been posted.
I also requoted Ophelia (using the intials OB) about redefining cucumbers, which I really appeciated.
I suspect that he is hurling untrue insults, because he is frightened of being shredded if it actually came to a real argument.
The man is certainly an idiot.
He’s saying bald is a new hairstyle. He also says, ‘What distinguishes the atheist from the agnostic is his belief that religion ought to be eliminated, that the world would be radically better off without it.’ I think I can disprove that in one fell swoop. It takes only one exception to disprove a premise, and I am it: I’m an atheist; I don’t necessarily want to see religion eliminated. There!
Religion has a part to play, it can perhaps be argued, in some societies. In others, it’s just about had it. Shelf life expired. Past its best-by date. Of no real use. Spirituality. Now there’s something that may well be of use, even if we care to reduce it, in a reductionist manner, as only a reductionist would, but that’s OK, to neuronal activity. Spirituality, yes, I can cope with that and can probably give it a number of names.
But religion. Well, how do we define it? Organised religion? Yes, that’ll do. That’s the real evil. Organise, and you politicise. Politicise, and you set person against person, group against group. But can ‘religion’ as such exist without organisation? Perhaps others have a view. If we can have religion without its being organised (e.g. I, you or one of your kids could just have a religion, without anyone’s knowing about it necessarily, but just perform it in private), then what is wrong with keeping religion per se?
This guy’s plain wrong: atheists don’t want to ban religion. Some, maybe most, atheists want to ban religion. But not all. He uses the word without qualification. What we do want to see an end to (and I think I might venture to say I speak for most if not all) is its privileged place in public life. An end to its special schools, so that kids are not sent into a captive atmosphere at a young age, but are allowed to get to, say, 14 or 15 and then decide on a religion (or none), having been taught about religions in class. An end to prattling prelates given seats in one of our legislative Houses as of right. An end to religions’ privileged place at the government table when tax concessions are being handed out (their purely charitable arms are a different matter, and are mostly to be applauded, provided there is no proselytising). An end to religions’ monopoly on national ceremonies that many other people might take more seriously and partake in if there were no men in frocks prancing about the place talking to a sky fairy.
Theists still can’t get their heads around the fact that it is entirely possible for someone to be neutral and not to make their atheism into a religion (goodness! but not all atheists even campaign, but merely do nothing, and among the things they don’t do is theistic belief, so they’re atheists, but they don’t have to lift a finger or even a brain cell).
I wish they’d get used to it: theism isn’t the default any more from which everythng else is a deviation. It had that privilege, and it must now give it up. After all, we’re born atheists; we learn theism; some of us then reject it consciously, some by just not bothering with it in the first place – not making a religion out of rejecting it, but just not bothering, like not bothering to take up beer drinking or breeding gerbils.
I’ve just started reading Dawkins book and what immediately struck me after my first scan through it was just how many of the reviews by theists depend on out and out lies and misrepresentation – not really a good example for their followers you would think.
Theos Hobson ?
Reading the Kermode piece on Empson [B&W front page], I noted this quote, which I must add to my personal collection, and is relevant here:
“Clearly, if you have reduced morality to keeping the taboos imposed by an infinite malignity, you can have no sense of personal honour or of the public good.”
“I’ve just started reading Dawkins book and what immediately struck me after my first scan through it was just how many of the reviews by theists depend on out and out lies and misrepresentation – not really a good example for their followers you would think. “
Well quite.
Even reviews in places you might expect to actually be interested in the book, such as NewScientist, just gave the opposing side a free platform to rant.
Andy Armitage wrote:”Spirituality. Now there’s something that may well be of use, even if we care to reduce it, in a reductionist manner, as only a reductionist would, but that’s OK, to neuronal activity. Spirituality, yes, I can cope with that and can probably give it a number of names”
Can we think of a better term than spirituality? It’s a cringe-making word for me. People use it as a synonym for goodness, but because it is associated with an immaterial soul people think that not believing in that kind of spirit means you don’t believe in goodness. Moreover, we philosophical materialists get associated with the greedy, grasping sort. Even to describe oneself as rational evokes images of a stunted, Spock-like creature unable to deal with emotions.
Hmmmm… Is it only the theists that misrepresent Dawkins? Seeing as some of the more critical reviews were written by non-theists (Eagleton, Nagel). Not sure whether Mary Midgley is a theist.
Which brings me to an objection tangentially related to the original post. I disliked Hobson’s careless redefinition of the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism” as depicting an attitude towards religion rather than a position on the God question – but then again, I’m not sure it is misrepresenting Dawkins’ or the more militant atheists’ position to say that they “religion ought to be eliminated, that the world would be radically better off without it.”. It’s just that this does not go for all or even most atheists. And it’s not in this respect that atheism would be a ‘faith’. There’s a point hidden deep within Hobson’s piece, he just fails to make it because he picks an easier way out.
A few threads ago I discussed the meaning of the term ‘atheism’ as ‘belief in lack of a God’ vs. ‘lack of belief in God’. I was unaware the term was used for the latter until OB pointed it out to me. And I do insist that in common language, atheism is taken to mean the former. This itself does not constitute a redefinition. It also does not make atheism a ‘faith’ in any reasonable meaning of the term. However, it does mean atheism is a philosophical position rather more developed (and thereby, open to challenge) than ‘what we are born with’, or the default position of a rational human being, as some of the commenters on Hobsons’ piece mentioned. And this is not a bad thing. Children are not born atheists – or theists, or physicalists, or Platonists, or Stoics for that matter (and if they were, it would be irrelevant for the validity of the position!).
What irks me a bit is what seems to me the tribalism of the whole discussion. As in Dirigible’s notion of the “opposing side”. There aren’t two sides at issue here – “atheists” and “theists”. There is a whole lot of criss-crossing dichotomies – on the existence of God, on the problems surrounding public religion, on the nature of science and rationality, and so forth. One’s position on one side does not determine one’s on the other. There’s quite a few atheists fans of standpoint epistemology, postfeminist deconstructionist bicycle repair, and so forth around. And theist hard-headed rationalists.
Eagelton is a theist (I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this before). The reviews of After Theory made much of his return to or renewed enthusiasm for Catholicism.
“And I do insist that in common language, atheism is taken to mean the former.”
But that’s a misunderstanding, and one partly created by and greatly reinforced by nonsense of the Hobson type, so we can’t just acquiesce in it. And the more obvious and economical meaning of the word itself (as we’re always endlessly pointing out) is just not-theism.
“Children are not born atheists”
Of course they are! Children are born a-everythingists, very much including a-theists. Not being X is not a positive or affirmative position, it is simply not being X.
“I have replied to the comment-is-free article, and deliberately called Hobson a liar. It has been posted.”
Yeah, so? We’ve explained it to you, in very clear and simple terms. We’re not the Guardian, okay? Can you understand that? This is not a profit-making enterprise, here; it makes no money whatsoever; none, zero; we can’t afford to get sued. Also, the server is the server for The Philosophers’ Magazine; B&W can’t possibly endanger TPM.
So just suck it up, GT. Live with it. Get over it. Stop complaining about it.
I don’t see how there can be tribalism here – there is no atheist club just as there is no international guild of people who don’t collect hand-turned wooden apples. Reading reviews of the The God Delusion is just a sport, as indeed writing them seems to have been. The difference between Nagel and Eagleton and the rest is that if one leaves aside one’s opinion of their views they at least reviewed the actually existing book rather than an imaginary book of evil of their own devising. For there to be an “us and them” there would have to be an “us”. I visit this site regularly, and not because I agree with every word on it but because I find it stimulating. I suspect that a list of things that all the commenters here would agree on would be very short, and long may that continue. One item that might be on such a list is respect for honest debate – which means not misrepresenting the positions of those one disagrees with. I haven’t been keeping score, but it seems to me that at least in recent months the atheists are ahead on points in this area.
In case you missed Hobson’s latest reply (he made one yesterday, too) –
“the responses have been full of intellectual laziness and dishonesty. On the one hand atheists protest: we just reject theism – look at the dictionary definition. And yet
they go on implying, or asserting, that religion is a force for bad in the world, that they have the moral highground. Atheism, in the normal usage of that term, entails this, which involves faith. Grown-up people don’t think that intellectual disputes can be settled by looking at the dictionary definition of something. People without the honesty to admit the nature of their own position are not worth debating with.”
Impressive!
“we can’t afford to get sued.”
It’s actually even more stark than that – for contractual reasons we cannot afford even the threat of legal action.
That would rather suggest that your free speech is limited by the mere mention of a writ…? Quelle ironie…
Ah – that’s what I meant by ‘can’t afford to endanger.’ I couldn’t remember the particulars, but knew they were strict.
The fact that atheists have criticised Dawkins for a variety of reasons has bo bearing on the fact that his arguments are regularly and seemingly deliberately misrepresented by theists – who on their terms should be behaving better.
“That would rather suggest that your free speech is limited by the mere mention of a writ…? Quelle ironie…”
Well, in practice, there would have to be at least a prima facie case to answer before it would become problematic. But the thing is – calling people liars would count in that respect. It just is actionable.
But that’s a misunderstanding, and one partly created by and greatly reinforced by nonsense of the Hobson type, so we can’t just acquiesce in it. And the more obvious and economical meaning of the word itself (as we’re always endlessly pointing out) is just not-theism.
Which is fine with me, as I understand you are using atheism in just those terms (and Hobson’s usage was wrong anyway) – but the stronger usage of it is well-rooted in language (based on my skimming of dictionaries, and plato.stanford.edu). So even though may be a ‘misunderstanding’, it is hardly a deliberate misinterpretation.
Hobson specifically states, in his original article, that all atheists want to stam out religion (or words to that effect).
This is demonstrably untrue, and several people (including me) have said so.
I see no retraction of his untrue statement as yet ……
I know OB already said that all children are born atheists, but I’d like to say it again because it’s so absolutely true that I want to be the one who says it wherever it gets said. All children are born atheists. No exceptions, no ifs or buts.
Hah. You’d be surprised, I’ve had arguments with people who took the “you CAN’T know what a baby thinks! Maybe babies are in touch with god!” tack.
Really just leaves you shaking your head and wondering what went wrong.
I blame the parents.
And for the prosecution, GT leads with the cunning “Liar Liar Pants on Fire!” argument.
Yes, well, if one defines ‘atheism’ as the absence (rather than the negation) of theism, then of course babies are atheists. However, I think this usage of the term is less common than it is made out to be, both here and in the comments on Hobson’s article (in which is word is wrongly used, of course). If atheism is defined as the negation of theism, a usage which I insist is more common, then obviously babies can’t be atheists. Because it is necessary to have a conception of God in order to believe he does not exist.
This does not mean that the “non-theist” usage of the term is not more economical, and more obvious, as OB believes. I’m not sure if it is. Maybe. But its usage has to be argued for. Can’t be just asserted.
But what can be asserted, as I did, is that ‘non-theist’ is the literal meaning. That is simply true. It’s a word like atypical or amoral. It has accumulated other associations, but they are not inherent in the literal meaning, so I think it’s at least questionable simply to assume that they are automatically part of the meaning – especially since they are tendentious, and there is no consensus on exactly what they are.
The (probable) fact that ‘athiesm’ is most commonly used to denote the negation of god does not necessarily mean that this is what most actual atheists believe.
After all, the word is originally perjorative and is still used as such in many theist quarters.
Which is why Grayling himself recommended against using it (though without recommending the use of ‘Brights’ instead, happily). But there is no very good substitute. I think most atheists I know want to be able to call themselves, simply, a-theists; we don’t much want to give up the word.
But yeah – the word is almost frantically pejorative in many theist quarters.
I think it’s kind of dangerous to base the meaning and usage of words such as “atheist” on the basis of morphological analysis, though. A philosopher is not just a lover of wisdom. It is arguable that the word “atheist” has similarly acquired meanings beyond the original compound “a-theist” in a way that “atypical” has not.
Dangerous? Why dangerous (in this case)?
Anyway, I didn’t say that. I said something a bit different. And I don’t think ‘philosopher’ is quite comparable, because the ‘a’=not prefix is really very common; I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to figure out that the basic, minimal meaning of atheist simply is not-theist.
And I certainly don’t see why atheists should let hostile witness theists decide what the word means. And the plain truth is that lots of atheists are not the argumentative variety. Lots of atheists really just aren’t theists, and let it go at that.
I think argumentative atheists are the more interesting ones, though.
Oh, well, sure. The others just sit there.
Haw!
It seems to me that the usage of “atheist” to imply any kind of belief is one that owes its currency to enemies of atheism. The argument with Merlijn is over the meaning of the word, not over whether babies have any beliefs. When I see what the writers of the negative reviews of TGD claim atheists believe…
It’s merely a question of usage, yes. I think both atheism in the strong sense and a-theism in the more skeptical/agnostic sense are very defensible standpoints – even if I disagree with them. I intend no pejorative tone in my usage of either.
I guess I have more of a problem with the non-argumentative varieties of both atheism and theism – either of the “I believe *something* exists” variety of theism (yeah, I believe something exists as well) or the smug postmodern version of atheism which regards just about any belief as a rustic, quaint but yet entertaining relic from times when people still believed there was something like truth.
Why, that sounds like Rorty at his most provoking. (I’ve been finding more provoking bits. My, he is good at them.)