The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Overdog]

To me the word "Atheism" takes the collection of "Atheists" (Atheist, meaning god-less) and tacks on an "ism", with the implication that the collection of Atheists constitute an ideology.

 

Ideology

 

1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

 

2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

 

3. Philosophy.

a. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.

b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.

 

4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

 

 

To me this is like saying that the absense of an ideology is an ideology.

 

It's like taking the word "Blind" (meaning sight-less) and saying that the collection of Blind people is "Blindism".

 

The word just doesn't make sense to me.

[modest]

To me the word "Atheism" takes the collection of "Atheists" (Atheist, meaning god-less) and tacks on an "ism", with the implication that the collection of Atheists constitute an ideology.

 

To me this is like saying that the absense of an ideology is an ideology.

 

It's like taking the word "Blind" and saying that the collection of Blind people is "Blindism".

 

The word just doesn't make sense to me.

 

I've never seen it that way. To me the prefix trumps the suffix.

 

theist = belief in a deity

atheist = not a belief in a deity

 

theism = an ideology involving the belief in a deity

atheism = not an ideology involving the belief in a deity

 

By modern usage, I think that's about right. However, somebody could easily make an argument against this by noting that the english word 'atheism' is older than the word 'theism'. Nevertheless, by modern usage, I like the above.

 

~modest

[Overdog]

...

theist = belief in a deity

atheist = not a belief in a deity

 

theism = an ideology involving the belief in a deity

atheism = not an ideology involving the belief in a deity

 

By modern usage, I think that's about right. However, somebody could easily make an argument against this by noting that the english word 'atheism' is older than the word 'theism'. Nevertheless, by modern usage, I like the above.

~modest

 

I agree with the way you have used the language. Perhaps it is a trick of the English language that makes so many people see it this way...

 

theism = an ideology involving the belief in a deity

atheism = an ideology involving the dis-belief in a deity

 

Leading to the idea it's a "cult" of some kind.

[modest]

theism = an ideology involving the belief in a deity

atheism = an ideology involving the dis-belief in a deity

 

Where did you get "disbelief in a deity". The prefix a- means "lacking in" or "lack of". Atheism naturally means "lacking in theism". By modern usage, I really think this is the correct implication of this word.

 

If I were to say someone is amoral - this would not mean they are unmoral or dismoral - it rather means that they lack morality. Asexual means lacking sexuality.

 

Dis- and un- mean opposite like disbelief (opposite of belief) and unwed (opposite of wed). "disbelief in a god" is not the same as "atheist".

 

~modest

[Overdog]

Apparently you are mis-interpreting my post. I'm not arguing with you at all. Look at the title of the thread..."...The Cult of Science?"

 

Where does the idea that Atheism is a Cult come from? Or do you think Cults are not ideological?

[modest]

Apparently you are mis-interpreting my post. I'm not arguing with you at all. Look at the title of the thread..."...The Cult of Science?"

 

Where does the idea that Atheism is a Cult come from? Or do you think Cults are not ideological?

 

I'm actually thinking out loud here more than arguing with you. I've come to the conclusion we need two words meaning:

1. no belief in a god
   
2. a belief in no god
   

Because, really, these imply two different things. Right now atheist has to apply to both. We could go with "distheist" or "untheist" meaning "a belief in no god" or "opposite of a belief in god". But, I don't think those words would catch on very fast ;)

 

What do you think?

 

~modest

 

Oh, to answer your cult question. Yes, some people use atheism like an ideology. I think Harris and Hitchens do this. Perhaps they practice "distheism" ;)

[Overdog]

I'm actually thinking out loud here more than arguing with you. I've come to the conclusion we need two words meaning:

1. no belief in a god
   
2. a belief in no god
   

Because, really, these imply two different things. Right now atheist has to apply to both. We could go with "distheist" or "untheist" meaning "a belief in no god" or "opposite of a belief in god". But, I don't think those words would catch on very fast ;)

 

What do you think?

 

Oh yes, I agree completely. Which is the reason for my earlier post about the difficulty in even defining "Atheism".

 

Yes, we do need two words.

 

The problem I'm talking about is that in English, when we tack "ism" on to the end of a word, it is easily construed as donoting an ideology of some sort...

 

Communism, Catholicism, Fascism, Objectivism, Constructivism..etc, etc.

 

And when people see the word "Atheism" it is easy to leap to the conclusion that it is a word referring to an ideology of some sort.

 

I'm just wondering if is is because of something inherent in the English language...perhaps some other languages don't have this problem?

[modest]

Yes, we do need two words.

 

And when people see the word "Atheism" it is easy to leap to the conclusion that it is a word referring to an ideology of some sort.

 

Yeah, I can see that.

 

Yes, we do need two words.

 

Ok, which of us should call Webster? I wonder if they can get it in by next week ;)

 

distheist

distheism

 

They're growing on me ;)

 

~modest

[Overdog]

I like it. Then they could drop the word "Atheism" and solve the problem of trying to define it.

 

Philosophy Dictionary: atheism

Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further.

[InfiniteNow]

Oh, to answer your cult question. Yes, some people use atheism like an ideology. I think Harris and Hitchens do this. Perhaps they practice "distheism" ;)

I believe Hitchens refers to his stance as "Anti-Theism."

 

Harris more often takes the stance that atheist is a ridiculous and useless word.

 

We don't have words like "a-astrologers" or "a-numerologists." So, why "a-theists?" Because, they need an easy lable to apply and lump people into buckets and laden with derogatory sentiments since theists cannot hold a match to them when arguing with them on the merit of their position.

 

 

You probably would have struggled to guess this from my posts here, but to shed some much needed light on this, I tend to agree with both. :shade:

[Southtown]

To me the word "Atheism" takes the collection of "Atheists" (Atheist, meaning god-less) and tacks on an "ism", with the implication that the collection of Atheists constitute an ideology.

 

To me this is like saying that the absense of an ideology is an ideology.

 

It's like taking the word "Blind" (meaning sight-less) and saying that the collection of Blind people is "Blindism".

 

The word just doesn't make sense to me.

The noun form of blind is blindness, not blindism. Nouns such as blindness and atheism are known as abstract rather than concrete.

[Southtown]

Also, I think the word 'atheist' is a generality, as is the word 'religion,' which conveniently lumps together all individuals who basically think that the universe was not made, but instead exists of its own accord. The advantage to using generalities like atheism or religion when trying to make a point is expedience. Why should I stop mid-sentence just to clarify the difference between "no belief" and a "belief in none?" Would anyone hear like to interrupt their prose by distinguishing amongst different religions regarding origins just to appease the rare few who have developed new spins on the old adage, "In the beginning?"

[modest]

I believe Hitchens refers to his stance as "Anti-Theism."

 

Perfect. Antitheist describes Hitchens well. Me on the other hand, I'm not at all antitheist. I have more of a live and let live and to each their own philosophy. But, I am atheist - strongly so. So, yeah, there's a difference there.

 

Harris more often takes the stance that atheist is a ridiculous and useless word.

 

We don't have words like "a-astrologers" or "a-numerologists." So, why "a-theists?" Because, they need an easy lable to apply and lump people into buckets and laden with derogatory sentiments since theists cannot hold a match to them when arguing with them on the merit of their position.

 

I don't think so. I think it's a strong word that atheists should claim as their own. Many, many, English words are a negation of something else. By definition, atheism is such a negation - that's just a fact. Atheism is a lack of theism. That doesn't mean the word is useless - it rather means the word is fitting and powerful when properly used.

 

When people ask me my denomination (living in Kansas, it's usually assumed I have one), I will respond 'atheist'. It's a short and simple title that applies. Nothing wrong with that, me thinks.

 

Besides, like I said before, the word "atheism" is older than the word "theism". So, basically, there were atheists walking the streets of London before there were theists so walking. I don't see it as a title so easily thrown off as Harris advocates.

 

You probably would have struggled to guess this from my posts here, but to shed some much needed light on this, I tend to agree with both. ;)

 

:doh:

 

~modest

[modest]

Also, I think the word 'atheist' is a generality, as is the word 'religion,' which conveniently lumps together all individuals who basically think that the universe was not made, but instead exists of its own accord.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

The advantage to using generalities like atheism or religion when trying to make a point is expedience. Why should I stop mid-sentence just to clarify the difference between "no belief" and a "belief in none?"

 

You miss the point. You shouldn't have to stop mid-sentence to clarify that. Consider a protestant talking to a catholic - they don't have to stop and explain to each other the difference between their two faiths. "Protestant" may just be a negation of "Catholicism" - but it's still a useful word to have. I've yet to ask someone what kind of Christian they are and gotten the answer: "Not Catholic".

 

Would anyone hear like to interrupt their prose...

 

Firstly, if you examine this sentence very, very carefully - you'll find irony that warrants a giggle.

 

Secondly:

 

Would anyone hear like to interrupt their prose by distinguishing amongst different religions regarding origins just to appease the rare few who have developed new spins on the old adage, "In the beginning?"

 

It's not the "rare few" Christians you may think:

 

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

A three year old talk which only seems to get better with age:

 

 

YouTube - Sam Harris at Idea CIty '05 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM

[InfiniteNow]

I don't think so. I think it's a strong word that atheists should claim as their own. Many, many, English words are a negation of something else. By definition, atheism is such a negation - that's just a fact. Atheism is a lack of theism.

 

<...>

 

Besides, like I said before, the word "atheism" is older than the word "theism". So, basically, there were atheists walking the streets of London before there were theists so walking.

 

Your position does not seem to be internally consistent, but I concede I may be missing some minor caveat somewhere.

 

You first state that, by definition, atheism is the negation of another word (due to the letter "a" at the beginning), that the fact of the matter is that atheism is a lack of theism.

 

However, in order to lack something, that "something" must first exist, ergo the logical consequence of this chronological relationship is that the word "theism" came first.

 

 

However, you close your post by saying that the term "atheism" is older than the term "theism."

 

 

 

What am I missing here? You're not making a lot of sense.

 

 

It's like... doesn't morality need to exist before amorality can? ;)

[modest]

Your position does not seem to be internally consistent, but I concede I may be missing some minor caveat somewhere.

 

You first state that, by definition, atheism is the negation of another word (due to the letter "a" at the beginning), that the fact of the matter is that atheism is a lack of theism.

 

However, in order to lack something, that "something" must first exist, ergo the logical consequence of this chronological relationship is that the word "theism" came first.

 

 

However, you close your post by saying that the term "atheism" is older than the term "theism."

 

 

 

What am I missing here? You're not making a lot of sense.

 

 

It's like... doesn't morality need to exist before amorality can? ;)

 

Yes, I started to address that in post 19. The modern English language has all the positive proclamations and the negative negations of those proclamations. We have atheist and theist, atheism and theism. But, English was not always this way. These words arrived in English around:

 

atheist: 1571

atheism: 1587

theist: 1662

 

So, in english, the word "atheist" is almost 100 years older than "theist" and (as I was saying) there's power there. It is not so easily a title thrown off as Harris advocates.

 

As to your objection of how it is possible for the negation to predate the affirmation - these words didn't start out in English - they come from older Greek words that have also been translated into "deist" and "deism" and the like. So, when I say "atheists" were walking the streets of london before "theists" (at least in the sense of the word), that is both accurate and says something about "atheism".

 

~modest