Posted: Sep 14, 2017 9:37 pm
Pebble wrote:Challenged SED on this:
Their reply:
Thank you for writing to us about the entry on atheism and
agnosticism.
The matter in question is not as clear cut as you suggest. While the
term "atheism" is used in a variety of ways in general discourse, our
entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature. Section 1
(Definitions of "Atheism") is devoted to a discussion of this and
related issues.
Traditionally speaking, the definition in our entry--that 'atheism'
means the denial of the existence of God--is correct in the
philosophical literature. Some now refer to this standard meaning as
"strong atheism" and contrast it with weaker notions.
As described in the entry, the argument for weakening the notion of
atheism was introduced into the philosophical literature by Antony
Flew in "The Presumption of Atheism" (1972). In that work, he noted
that he was using a novel etymological argument to try to convince
people *not* to follow the *standard meaning* of the term. His goal
was to reframe the debate about the existence of God and to re-brand
"atheism" as a default position.
Not everyone has been convinced to use the term in Flew's way simply
on the force of his argument. For some, who consider themselves
atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an
attempt to water down a perfectly good concept. For others, who
consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts
seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they
rejected.
In any case, the entry takes some time to discuss this history.
All the best,
Yours,
Uri
My reply to them:
Thank you for your well argued reply.
Perhaps I am being thick, but how can one deny the existence of that which does not exist? For example: Afariests?
Surely this is the definition only when viewed from a theistic standpoint.
As the existence of god is a positive claim requiring evidence or faith. Failure to make said claim cannot be reasonably regarded as denial other than in the minds of believers.
While I acknowledge the ‘history’ of your definition - that is simply a reflection of the zeitgeist when the atheism was defined by a majority of believers rather than a rational assessment of the actual meaning of the term.
I suppose the confusion arises from the term agnostic - but gnosticism and belief are different.
The agnostic does not know whether god exists or not, the atheist does not believe that god exists, thus two different but mutually compatible attitudes.
Any better ideas?
No, especially given that the above is virtually the same blind dismissal they gave people who objected to their previous definition of atheism article.
I mean this:
our entry is on its meaning in the philosophical literature.
Is just a fancy way of parroting Humpty Dumpty.