|
Description
In an earlier paper, I coined the term 'natheism' to stand for a relatively new version of Atheism which defines 'atheism' as "lack of belief in God." Natheism retains the term 'atheism' but redefines it. I then argued that natheism is mistaken; the standard conception and dictionary definition--"denial of the existence of God"--is indeed, correct.
For these papers, I have chosen not to provide direct attribution or identify the source of specific remarks. The positions are there, and fairly represented; those who take them will recognize their handiwork. All are taken from items in the Bibliography. I write of Atheism primarily, and only incidentally of atheists. For a group whose crying need is unity, unity resulting in political power, it is surely inappropriate to foment an internecine struggle. The last thing needed by the free-thought community is more internal strife, hostility and wrangling in an infinite series of point-counter-point tomes.
**********
Leaving Out 'Believing In'
Some fifty-plus years ago, a member of the University of Pennsylvania's illustrious Philosophy Department took aside an undergraduate major and issued a stern admonition: "Son, if you want to get anywhere in philosophy, never use 'believe in'. Well, I never got anywhere in philosophy, but it was sterling advice, nonetheless. 'Believe in' is both ambiguous and vague, a hopeless expression often used-deliberately, I suspect--to obfuscate discussion. We believe in persons, things, institutions, theories, books, doctrines, virtues,... 'Believing in God' sometimes means 'believing that God exists', and sometimes 'believing that God will help me' or 'believing that God knows best'. "Do you believe in your spouse?" is obviously a very different question from "Do you believe in ghosts?" The latter is the existence query; the former clearly not.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
But in is not the only culprit here; believe is a logically maddening concept on its own demerits. At one extreme, it is used to represent the unswerving conviction and absolute credulity of the true believer. "God said it. I believe it. End of discussion." Thus does the familiar bumper-sticker flaunt the unassailable level of belief of the car's occupants. Most religious beliefs are held with similar, unshakeable intensity--which demonstrates that psychological certainty, the feeling of certainty, has little connection to knowledge. When, in the immediate aftermath of the 9-11 tragedy, an entire nation knee-jerks its way to praise and pray to the very Being who caused, or, at least, permitted, the slaughter, that's what's called BELIEF!
On the other hand are the many usages that make believe the black sheep of the epistemic family, the counterfeit of knowledge, the shadow of truth, and the margarine of certainty. "Only Make Believe"; "I believe my spouse is faithful"; "I believe I added correctly." Believing is what you do when you don't really know. Dictionaries reflect this wide range of vagueness by listing both extremes: for the former, "to take as true, real"; for the latter, "to suppose or think." This last use is quite close to concepts like 'guesses' or 'hopes', i.e. the tiniest degree of confidence.
'Knowledge' has been defined in terms of belief. Those attempts, e.g. ('knowledge' = justified, true belief) and their flaws are notorious. But, how is 'belief' itself to be defined? Perhaps behaviorally?
That approach may work for some practical, empirical beliefs, but founders on the rocks of abstract beliefs and beliefs involving universals. "Sam believes that 'The True' cannot be reduced to 'The Good'"; "Sam believes there are no primes between [10.sup.69] and [10.sup.70]." Such beliefs appear to have no behavioral counterparts or pragmatic implications.
Not the least of all the puzzles involved in attempting to clarify the concept of belief is the matter of 'doxastic voluntarism', a forbidding name, indeed, for a much more comprehensible theory. Are beliefs freely chosen? Can we pick or select our beliefs? Can we decide to believe? Voluntarism answers these questions affirmatively. It is a theory implicit in a great deal of religious usage and thus,... |
More articles from American Atheist Magazine
Tony Pasquarello's "Atheism and Natheism": a response from George Rick..., December 22, 2003
American Atheists Inc., December 22, 2003
Agnosticism: the basis for Atheism, not an alternative to it., December 22, 2003
Christmas eve in heaven., December 22, 2003
On avoiding that last visit., December 22, 2003
Looking for additional articles?
Click here
to search our database of over 3 million articles.
|
