Sticking to the general topic of the peddling of questionable 'knowledge' (to update the local situation: Haunts of Brisbane is currently assembling a petition to request "Jack" Sim of Ghost Tours Pty Ltd turn over a document he purported to have in 2009 pertaining to the murder of Robert Cox) I thought I'd turn my attention to the "Atheist Foundation of Australia" and its various claims and assertions. Providing I have time, I will cover some of these in detail via subsequent posts. For the moment here's a basic breakdown of the problems which their "definition of atheism" suffers from:
As per the group's FAQ section (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/faq):
"Dictionaries contain a variety of definitions for Atheism. Prescribed by religious cultures has many Atheists finding them unsatisfactory. Most people who classify themselves as scientific Atheists consider the following definition to be a good working model:
Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural."
Of course dictionaries include a variety of definitions. Dictionaries are supposed to catalogue the usage of words. If a word has multiple usages or possible meanings then those will (or at least should) be covered therein. The second sentence implies that the definitions that can be found in dictionaries are set or shaped by "religious cultures". Let's look at a couple of easily accessible dictionary definitions:
From 'Oxford Dictionaries' (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism):
"noun
[mass noun]disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
From Meriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism):
"1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
I have restricted the search to a couple of results from the first page of Google simply because these are likely candidates that someone wanting a definition may come across before potentially stumbling onto the AFA site. Both are remarkably basic and leave little to be taken issue with. How then can these definitions be regarded as "unsatisfactory" (given dictionary accounts are typically quite simplistic, one therefore expects very little from them) or "Prescribed by religious cultures"? Both are presumably the result of dictionary researchers coming to agree that these represented broad but still useful accounts of the term.
The first is substantially broad yet quite correct. Although a historical case can be made that atheism pertains only to the denial of a theistic (as in, from theism, hence a-theism as a negation) God it is nevertheless applied presently to multiple conceptualisations of God and gods. Furthermore, "disbelief or lack of belief" accommodates both major stances with regard to atheism: positive (the assertion that God/gods do not exist), and negative (holding no belief in God/gods).
The second maintains similar features but adds further historicity to the definition. Noting the "archaic" usage identifies the use of the term in Ancient Greece as a synonym for impiety. While 2 a is far less clear than the Oxford account, it still provides a basic description of atheists as 'those who do not believe' in gods. 2 b is somewhat questionable, at least in my opinion as it implies a codification too similar to religion to adequately summarise the philosophical nature of atheism. However, do some groups or persons promulgate atheism in what may be described as a "doctrine"? Yes. I would argue that the AFA itself presents an example of this. Therefore the inclusion of that is appropriate.
Let's move on then to the third sentence of the AFA description. Suddenly we have a new sub-category: the "scientific" atheist. In my opinion "scientific" is being used here simply to provide validation through the tried and true invocation of science in that fashion. Moving on, we may ask why the group is so concerned with regular, dictionary accounts when they are "scientific" atheists. Indeed, one may also wonder if "Scientific Atheists Foundation of Australia" wouldn't have been a better moniker for the group to adopt. Regardless, on what grounds is the claim being made that the majority of such "scientific" atheists endorse the group's definition? Has a survey been carried out? Who are these "scientific" atheists and why are they so concerned with asserting a definition more elaborate than those we find in dictionaries? (Actually, why are they asserting a definition for atheism when they self-identify as "scientific" atheists?)
Now we come to the definition itself. Science makes a return when it is proposed that "no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural" exists. Firstly, the inclusion of "supernatural" takes us outside of atheism: in no way does the term imply or connote a denial of the supernatural, it deals specifically with deities. It is also worth pointing out that science proceeds using methodological naturalism and looks solely for natural causes. There could never be "scientific" evidence of the supernatural for precisely that reason. In the Dover schools trial, Intelligent Design was ruled unscientific (i.e. not able to be taught as science) because it involves supernatural agency.
Even more damning of this statement about errant evidence is the fact that a religious zealot could fully endorse it! Those who believe in God based on faith do not require evidence. Some of them even see the lack of conclusive evidence as proof that their faith is exactly that, faith. Evidence against their beliefs can also be seen as tests of faith. Perceiving a statement that may equally apply to the theist as to any atheist as even a “working definition” is what I would call naive.
Note the use of the word "acceptance" in the definition. Atheism is defined as "the acceptance" of no evidence for God or gods (I leave off the supernatural as it is patently spurious and is not part of atheism even in the most extreme generality). Before anything is said it is assumed that the position endorsed by the group is correct. One simply has to accept the state of affairs (...sounds rather like accepting Jesus as "our Lord and saviour"!).
Atheism is not "acceptance" it is, like any other position, a belief. I mean belief in the philosophical sense: a proposition taken to be true. It is obvious to me from the FAQ page and other parts of the AFA website that the author(s) of these sections do not know the difference between belief as a term within philosophy, and belief as a vernacular term. In the latter context belief usually implies a strong conviction (hence why a politician might say, "I believe..." rather than "I think...", as it appears to carry greater surety). Within philosophy there is no value judgement. The use of "acceptance" must then be the product of either: a) lack of knowledge, or b) misplaced semantics.
To sum up, the definition provided by the AFA website is, to my mind, an especially flawed one. Why bother pointing this out? Well, if a group purports to be a national body that represents a particular section of society then I argue there is an onus on them to actually know what they are talking about, just as there should be an onus on tour operators who cast their stories as anything but fiction to actually get the facts right. In my estimation and based on the above argumentation, the AFA falls substantially short of offering a useful, accurate, or even satisfactory definition. Far from being an exception, I have found other instances within that group's information and "articles" section displaying similar issues.
Much like I am concerned that those actually looking to become informed on Brisbane's history will be provided with errant information by a certain local tour operator, I am likewise worried that individuals who want to learn about serious intellectual concepts will be fed questionable definitions.
No comments:
Post a Comment