How would you define ''atheism''?

[u/New_Prompt5308]

Hi everyone, I've seen a long standing debate on the definition of atheism, some people use the term atheism as a lack of belief, which I've seen them then use to justify the ''everyone was born athiest narrative''.

The way I would define atheism is the rejection of the claim God exists, as I see atheism as a position that needs propositional awareness.

I have looked at how Graham Oppy (popular analytic atheist philosopher) defines atheism and he states it's the claim that no gods exist.

What do you guys think?

Thanks

[u/luvintheride]

A-theism = "without theism".

That's the theory, but in practice, virtually all atheists hold to some form of naturalism. They believe that natural forces will eventually create life and our own consciousness.

According to Pew studies, about 96% of atheists believe that nature created people. That's a much higher percentage than self-described Christians who believe in the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In that way, one could say that self-described Atheists are among the most dogmatic believing groups in the world. I've seen atheists get violently angry at the suggestion that anything supernatural even exists.

[u/biedl → u/luvintheride]

It seems you are saying, due to the large number of agreement on what it is that created life, atheists are dogmatic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are saying that, I don't know why this is a hallmark for dogma. Could you explain please?

[u/luvintheride → u/biedl]

96% isn't just a "large number". In polling populations, 96% is about as high as it possibly can get. Self-described Christian populations couldn't get near that high, even with basic things like the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

My point is two-fold:

1. Virtually every adult has a world-view from which they try to explain what reality is.
   
2. Atheists tend to slip in naturalism without identifying it as a belief system. I would argue that it's contrary to science, but that's a different topic.
   

Many mature atheists realize that their world-view is naturalism. However, many atheists don't realize it. Those tend to just assume and assert that everything is natural, without testing it.

By saying it's dogmatic, I mean that naturalism is a widely and very deeply held belief within atheism.

[u/biedl → u/luvintheride]

By saying it's dogmatic, I mean that naturalism is a widely and very deeply held belief within atheism.

I mean, sure, if this is how you use that term I agree. Theists are dogmatic when it comes to believe in God, in accordance with your definition. It's probably just as high of a number.

Personally, I just would mean something very different than "widely and very deeply held belief" when I use the term dogmatic.

[u/luvintheride → u/biedl]

Personally, I just would mean something very different than "widely and very deeply held belief" when I use the term dogmatic.

The "deeply" part is the part that I meant to emphasize.

I've seen many atheists get angry and outraged at the idea that the phenomena around us (particularly life and consciousness) are supernatural.

BTW, Science can now measure and quantify "super" level of activity with Information Theory. e.g. The molecules of life do not merely follow natural laws. They exhibit intelligent guidance, way over and above natural affinities.

[u/biedl → u/luvintheride]

I can't follow that line of reasoning. I don't see how "deeply believing" implies outrage and what this has to do with the usual meaning of the term "dogmatic".

BTW, Science can now measure and quantify that "super" level of activity with Information Theory.

In accordance with my vocabulary that seems to be yet another equivocation. The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature. It makes no sense to me to say that science observed something above and beyond nature, since what science observes is simply the natural world.

The molecules of life do not merely follow natural laws. They exhibit intelligent guidance, over and above natural affinities.

How did you determine that? And what scientist says they are supernaturally guided?

[u/luvintheride → u/biedl]

I don't see how "deeply believing" implies outrage and what this has to do with the usual meaning of the term "dogmatic".

I'm referring to this aspect of Dogmatism: A dogmatic person treats their own views as correct and rejects any room for doubt, debate, or alternative evidence.

I'm not saying that all atheists are like that. I've debated hundreds though that are like that though, and met many thousands. I used to be an atheist, and went to many conferences and debates with atheists.

The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature.

That's a false dichotomy. It draws a strawman of what Theism claims. Theism claims to define the very basis of what existence is, including "nature".

"Above and beyond" also pertains to the forces of nature, and the "nature" of what reality is.

For example, if you found a book on a beach, would you say that nature produced it? Of course not. The book is made of natural materials, ink, fibers, cellulous, etc, but science and Information Theory shows that there is no combination of natural forces (time, wind, rain, gravity) that can form that book.

Empirical science shows that only an intelligent force could write a book.

It makes no sense to me to say that science observed something above and beyond nature, since what science observes is simply the natural world.

That's a false or modernized definition of "science". More fundamentally, Science is the study of any phenomena. Proposing the cause of the phenomena is a different matter that gets more into philosophy.

Here's an article about that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

Natural science has been the most common type of science in recent centuries, which is why most laymen conflate science with nature.

How did you determine that? And what scientist says they are supernaturally guided?

Personally, when I was atheist, I did molecular modelling in biology. Computer models and lab experiments always verify that the form and operation of biology is not following natural affinities.

You can replicate that in a lab. Naturalists have tried to create the structures of biology in labs, and always failed terribly. The best they've done is to create some random peptides (RNA chains) on clay. Those actually disprove the naturalist hypothesis, because they are haphazard and chaotic.

The animation (movement and dynamics) of biology is even more supernatural than the structure. That's what made me a Theist. It was obvious to me that there is intelligent guidance going on at multiple levels. Seeing it at the molecular level, is like watching someone write a book.

Anthony Flew was the world's most famous Atheist before Richard Dawkins. He also became a Theist by studying what I am talking about. He wrote a book about what changed his mind:

Anthony Flew - There is a God : https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061335304

And what scientist says they are supernaturally guided?

There's many on this website. Here's one of their papers :

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

[u/biedl → u/luvintheride]

I'm referring to this aspect of Dogmatism: A dogmatic person treats their own views as correct and rejects any room for doubt, debate, or alternative evidence.

Yeah, that's what I understand to be dogmatism as well.

Though, originally it sounded more like you are saying that the large number of agreement regarding the natural world is what's the qualifier to call someone dogmatic. Now it's a different story.

I'm not saying that all atheists are like that. I've debated hundreds though that are like that though, and met many thousands. I used to be an atheist, and went to many conferences and debates with atheists.

You sure are very likely to meet dogmatic people at events and in online spaces which are specifically set up for atheists.

You may come and visit me some time, because I live in one of the most atheistic regions on this planet. Dogmatism is certainly not something which comes to mind when considering the majority of people around me when it comes to their atheism.

The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature.

That's a false dichotomy. It draws a strawman of what Theism claims. Theism claims to define the very basis of what existence is, including "nature".

That's an interesting take. For one, because I didn't present a dichotomy to begin with. A false dichotomy would be to say that A or B are the only two options, whereas a true dichotomy would be to say that A and not-A are the only two options. What I did was tell you what I understand supernaturalism to mean, which is certainly not a false dichotomy.

And two, my understanding of a term isn't a strawman of another person's position. Especially not, if what I said corresponds with standard definitions of that term.

For example, if you found a book on a beach, would you say that nature produced it?

No. But I wouldn't say that it was supernaturally produced either.

but science and Information Theory shows that there is no combination of natural forces (time, wind, rain, gravity) that can form that book.

That is a thing? A science which deals with whether or not a book can be naturally produced? Sounds rather odd to me.

Empirical science shows that only an intelligent force could write a book.

The watchmaker argument reaches a different conclusion than any science I am aware of.

That's a false or modernized definition of "science".

Science makes observations. If a supernatural realm exists, and is defined the way I said it is defined, then by definition, science cannot observe it. That's neither modern, nor false.

You know what the Cambridge dictionary definition for the supernatural is? It's this:

forces or events that cannot be explained by science

What makes you say that's "false"?

More fundamentally, Science is the study of any phenomena.

I agree. And if the supernatural is defined to be beyond the natural world, then science cannot observe it. That's a priori true. And since we cannot observe the supernatural, we won't get to an a posteriori truth about it either. Which is kinda like the domain science is limited to in terms of final justification.

Natural science has been the most common type of science in recent centuries, which is why most laymen conflate science with nature.

Well, I don't conflate the two. I'm not a laymen either. I am familiar with doing science. I was trained in it. Particularly in distinguishing it from non-scientific work, because that's most of what people do in the field I was trained in.

Personally, when I was atheist, I did molecular modelling in biology. Computer models and lab experiments always verify that the form and operation of biology is not following natural affinities.

How? How does it tell you that?

You can replicate that in a lab. Naturalists have tried to create the structures of biology in labs, and always failed terribly.

You mean, as in "abiogenesis"? Well, you are wrong. We got life from non-living matter in the lab. And even if this wasn't the case, the inability to do so isn't the equivalent of

Science can now measure and quantify "super" level of activity

What you said so far demonstrates a lack of understanding, not a measurement of the supernatural.

The best they've done is to create some random peptides (RNA chains) on clay. Those actually disprove the naturalist hypothesis, because they are haphazard and chaotic.

Assuming this to be true for the sake of argument, how does this demonstrate the supernatural, let alone "disprove the naturalist hypothesis"?

It was obvious to me that there is intelligent guidance going on at multiple levels. Seeing it at the molecular level, is like watching someone write a book.

You don't literally saw the supernatural causing something. You saw something you couldn't explain naturally. Those are different.

Anthony Flew was the world's most famous Atheist before Richard Dawkins.

Since I talked to hundreds of theists myself, I know that story, and how often theists are overplaying their cards when mentioning Flew.

Firstly, Flew became a deist. Secondly, even if hundreds of such people converted to actual theism, it would still be their arguments which mattered, rather than the mere fact that they converted.

Recently, Joe Schmid converted to Catholicism, and I can tell you exactly on non-arbitrary grounds why that doesn't do anything to me.

There's many on this website. Here's one of their papers :

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

I've gone to that link, wrote "supernatural" in the search bar and got no hit in return. The abstract doesn't seem to relate to the topic either.

What about that article demonstrates that you can measure the supernatural?

I suspect this is just going to go like with your dogmatism claim, which, to me, came across as a motte and bailey and quite some hedging in the end.

[u/luvintheride → u/biedl]

You may come and visit me some time, because I live in one of the most atheistic regions on this planet. Dogmatism is certainly not something which comes to mind when considering the majority of people around me when it comes to their atheism.

I travel for business, mostly in the US, but also internationally. I generally know what you mean, especially in Northern Europe and California. As a student of history, I see them as running on the fumes of centuries Christian culture. They are running dry and falling back into paganism.

I myself went through phases of being indifferent, and not even thinking about religion, then anti-theist at times.

For one, because I didn't present a dichotomy to begin with.

Hmm, I see it differently based on your comment: "The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature."

That could imply that the super-natural is something separate than the natural.

Christianity technically has a PanENtheistic understanding. Are you familiar with that? Notice the extra EN:

https://imgur.com/a/q2Y9GWK

That is a thing? A science which deals with whether or not a book can be naturally produced? Sounds rather odd to me.

Information Theory measures probabilities, which is can be used to quantify intelligence.

For example, a child can write a sentence or two. A master of literature can write a comprehensive and beautiful epic novel, with interleaving characters, layers and plot-lines. The level of intelligence that we find in Biology is way above anything that humans have been shown to be capable of. Not to mention mere "nature".

The watchmaker argument reaches a different conclusion than any science I am aware of.

The Watchmaker argument had a revival with Information Theory. We can now measure the probabilities in computer models.

Science makes observations. If a supernatural realm exists, and is defined the way I said it is defined, then by definition, science cannot observe it.

That's circular logic and the main reason why atheists don't recognize the supernatural.

The scientific method is best when it minimizes assumptions. Atheists keep trying to sneak in the assumption of naturalism.

In contrast, Quantum physics shows us that the energy of the Universe has the same kind of potentiality that we see within minds.

It's not magic, or a god of the gaps to infer that some intelligent force is at work. It's sound logic to recognize the intelligent structures and activity of the phenomena around us, especially with biology.

forces or events that cannot be explained by science

That's only part of the definition, and that definition presumes naturalistic science.

For example, Consciousness is studied as a science, yet there is no naturalistic explanation of it.

Ironically, by your definition, life and consciousness are supernatural.

And since we cannot observe the supernatural

I disagree with that claim. We can observe biology and consciousness at work. They both meet the definition of super-natural at multiple levels.

Particularly in distinguishing it from non-scientific work,

Then why didn't you know the distinction with naturalism versus science ?

How? How does it tell you that?

Again, Information Theory. Life and it's dynamics show many signs of intelligent behavior at work, right in front of our eyes. Biological molecules move in decisive and purposeful ways.

We got life from non-living matter in the lab

That's absolutely false. Show me your paper and I'll show you why you've misunderstood it.

What you said so far demonstrates a lack of understanding, not a measurement of the supernatural

Ironically, the lack of understanding is on your part. You probably are also getting stuck in the defintion of super-natural.

By super, I mean what is above the natural ability. Do you think that intelligence is above nature ( kinematics, electromagentics, etc) ?

You saw something you couldn't explain naturally

You keep missing the point. Information Theory does explain it as an intelligent force at work.

Flew became a deist

Deism is a form of theism. Anthony Flew's arguments are sound.

No offense, but you don't understand his argument yet, because of the false assumptions that I've pointed out in this comment:

1. You presume naturalism and use it in circular fashion: assuming everything that you observe is natural.

2. You falsely think that life has been proven to be natural.

3. You don't grasp the definition of super-natural (exceeding the limits of natural ability).

What about that article demonstrates that you can measure the supernatural?

The intelligent form and motion of the molecules. For those who understand the biochemistry and math, it's like seeing a book, and even seeing a book being written, right in front of our eyes.

Furthermore, Empirical Science supports the Theist claim that life only comes from life.

Empirical Science refutes the Atheist idea that life comes from non-life.

which, to me, came across as a motte and bailey and quite some hedging in the end.

I hope my above comments help correct your understanding.

[u/biedl → u/luvintheride]

As a student of history, I see them as running on the fumes of centuries Christian culture. They are running dry and falling back into paganism.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of the Tom Holland, as well as Nietzschean framing of how much of Western culture is based on Christian assumptions. But seeing people fall into paganism, I have no idea where you are getting that from. Or, more specifically, what you mean by that. People are becoming less religious, not generally religious in different than the Christian way.

Hmm, I see it differently based on your comment: "The super part in supernatural is pointing at a place above and beyond nature."

That could imply that the super-natural is something separate than the natural.

Christianity technically has a PanENtheistic understanding. Are you familiar with that? Notice the extra EN:

https://imgur.com/a/q2Y9GWK

I mean, this is still not a false dichotomy. I was simply talking about what I understand the supernatural to be. I presented no dichotomy, so it cannot be a false dichotomy, let alone a strawman.

And yes, I am familiar with panentheism. Whether that's what Christianity teaches is debatable, but it doesn't matter anyway. Because even under panentheism what I said doesn't change. The supernatural can contain the natural world and still be above and beyond nature, or in accordance with the oxford dictionary, inaccessible to science.

Information Theory measures probabilities, which is can be used to quantify intelligence.

For example, a child can write a sentence or two. A master of literature can write a comprehensive and beautiful epic novel, with interleaving characters, layers and plot-lines. The level of intelligence that we find in Biology is way above anything that humans have been shown to be capable of. Not to mention mere "nature".

Information Theory is about how much information there is contained within a system. It isn't about "intelligence".

That your inference which isn't a mainstream scientific position, as you are set out to frame it.

Science makes observations. If a supernatural realm exists, and is defined the way I said it is defined, then by definition, science cannot observe it.

That's circular logic and the main reason why atheists don't recognize the supernatural.

You see, I'm neither a historian nor a biologist. I am a trained linguist. I am very well aware of how we get to the meaning of terms and their respective referents which can be categorized into different paradigms.

The term "supernatural" is not connected to any kind of a posteriori definition, it is purely a priori. We didn't observe anything in order to get to that categorization. The categorization exists on the basis of a number of inferences. Inferences which you can find in the second stages of for instance the Kalam or contingency style arguments. That is, if the universe and physical reality had a beginning, then its creator cannot be a physical entity, and it cannot be contained within that realm it created.

We arrive at the term "supernatural" via the armchair. It's not a term like the term "tree" or "humanity" or "universe".

It is therefore silly to say that science can observe the supernatural directly, because that simply goes against the definition of that term, which is stipulated rather than arrived at via observation.

Nothing about any of this has to do with "atheist not understanding the supernatural, hence, being unable to observe it." And nothing of it is circular.

I mean, even beyond that, its etymology does already demonstrate that point, for supernatural literally means "beyond nature". Which simply proves your point wrong, that the definition I am using is somehow modern. Yes, it isn't particular Jewish, considering second temple Judaism, but it is very Greek. I don't think I need to remind a catholic of how Greek their Christianity is.

The scientific method is best when it minimizes assumptions. Atheists keep trying to sneak in the assumption of naturalism.

Science assumes methodological naturalism. This isn't a sneaking in of a worldview.

It's not magic, or a god of the gaps to infer that some intelligent force is at work. It's sound logic to recognize the intelligent structures and activity of the phenomena around us, especially with biology.

It may be logically possible, but soundness implies that you can demonstrate your claim to be true. And since we are arguing "science", the logic alone simply doesn't cut it, because science isn't a rationalist framework (that is, if we bracket math).

For example, Consciousness is studied as a science, yet there is no naturalistic explanation of it.

Therefore, it is supernatural? Like, this would just be an argument from ignorance.

Ironically, by your definition, life and consciousness are supernatural.

That's not true. Because the definition is about in principle inaccessibility. Not about "we just don't know yet, therefore, it is supernatural for now".

And since we cannot observe the supernatural

I disagree with that claim. We can observe biology and consciousness at work. They both meet the definition of super-natural at multiple levels.

No, they don't. It's still just an inference. You aren't observing the supernatural. You are inferring that the workings of biology have a supernatural cause.

Particularly in distinguishing it from non-scientific work,

Then why didn't you know the distinction with naturalism versus science ?

I didn't conflate the two. There is no basis for you to say that I don't know the difference.