It seems like philosophical discussion follows this movement from the general to precision. You never see a philosopher say, "wait, let's make this a little more vague". The general is the macro. Philosophy enhances details by zooming into the micro.

But is this movement ever complete? At which point does the general stop being general?

I'm going to copy my response to Noah Te Stroete and see if that clarifies things:

Let me give an example. If i'm involved in a discussion with someone who, like me, is thoroughly versed in , say, Sartre, the our disagreement over Sartre will require each of us to reexamine our own readings of him and his definitions. It can be exasperating and frustrating, but also potentially very instructive. Ive had many such discussions, and I end up learning something new in my own reading of philosophers. That's regardless of whether I come to an agreement in the discussion. On the other hand, I've been involved in debates where I have to spend so much time in superficial background clarification that it never becomes challenging for me.

There have been many famous ongoing debates in philosophical history, such as those between Gadamer and Habermas, Habermas, Rorty and Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins, etc.
Such debates never resolve themselves, and yet are highly instructive for both the participants and the audience.

And then there are non-debate debates where the parties involved were so far apart in their use of terms that the debate was never really able to get started (Derrida vs Gadamer and Derrida vs Searle).

The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way. — Frank Apisa

I thought atheist had an intentionally specific vague meaning...Isn't the main definition "one who does not believe in god or gods"? That captures a wide range of beliefs, (everything from agnostic to "I believe there is no god") but its meaning seems perfectly clear. Wouldn't "Christian" have the exact same problem? What about "Asian"? It just means "a person of Asian descent" or "relating to Asia". Notice there is then a wide range of possible items that fit that definition...but it doesn't make the definition meaningless.

I would actually say that most problems with the word "atheist" come from people assuming a more specific definition than the word actually entails. When I hear "Christian" I think of the whole range of Christianity, not just Catholics or Baptists.

I thought atheist had an intentionally specific vague meaning...Isn't the main definition "one who does not believe in god or gods"? That captures a wide range of beliefs, (everything from agnostic to "I believe there is no god") but its meaning seems perfectly clear. Wouldn't "Christian" have the exact same problem? What about "Asian"? It just means "a person of Asian descent" or "relating to Asia". Notice there is then a wide range of possible items that fit that definition...but it doesn't make the definition meaningless.

I would actually say that most problems with the word "atheist" come from people assuming a more specific definition than the word actually entails. When I hear "Christian" I think of the whole range of Christianity, not just Catholics or Baptists. — ZhouBoTong

Well...if "atheist" means "one without a belief in any god"...that WOULD mean agnostics are atheists. But most agnostics I've known DO NOT want to be considered atheists.

Anyway, a few comments on that...which I will offer in separate posts.

COMMENT #1:

The notion that "atheist" means "without a belief in any god" was manufactured fairly recently...and derives from an erroneous claim about the etymology of the word. Atheists who apparently wanted to inflate their numbers by including agnostics, claimed the word atheism derived from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' that a GOD exists) = (a person without a belief that a GOD exists.)

But...it doesn't. In fact, the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE the word "theism." It cannot have derived that way.

"Atheism" came to us from the Greek, through the French..."a" (without) + "theos" ( a god) and equals (without a god) NOT (without a belief in a god.)

Anyway...it would be just about impossible to find an English dictionary prior to, let's say, 1950 that would use "without a 'belief' in a god" as part of its definition. Just about every pre-1950 dictionary (and many today) use the definition derived from its etymology...namely, "a person who believes or asserts that no gods exist."

Using that definition...agnostics would NOT be atheists.

COMMENT #2:

People who uses "atheist" as part of a personal descriptor either assert a 'belief' that no gods exist...OR that it is much more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists.

A 'belief' that no gods exist OR that it is more likely no gods exist...(both of which are nothing but blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence)...seems absolutely essential to use of that word as part of a self-descriptor.

Agnostics do not do that.

Some people do identify as agnostic-atheists or atheist-agnostics...and do make those blind guesses. But they use the "atheist" qualifier BECAUSE of those guesses.

I attempt not to use a descriptor unless needed for commentary like this, but here is how I describe my agnosticism:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Comment #3:

If the word is not ambiguous...why are there so many arguments about strong-atheism or weak-atheism...and why does that distinction come up so often in Internet discussions...

...and damn near never in conversations with atheists in a non-cyber environment.

The only time the distinction between strong and weak seems to be made...is during these kinds of discussions. Meet someone in the real world who is an atheist...and that person will use "atheist."

Wonder what they mean.

Are they asserting that no gods exist?

Are they asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than at least one does?

Whichever...they are asserting a blind guess...which their counterparts "theists" call 'beliefs.'

Well...if "atheist" means "one without a belief in any god"...that WOULD mean agnostics are atheists. But most agnostics I've known DO NOT want to be considered atheists. — Frank Apisa

and yet ask them to describe any god that they believe in...

Using that definition...agnostics would NOT be atheists. — Frank Apisa

Fair enough (I would probably have to learn Greek to debate the point), but using that definition, most atheists I know would NOT be atheists.

How should we classify the following belief?
There is no god that I believe in, but I don't know for sure.

"a person who believes or asserts that no gods exist." — Frank Apisa

The data seems hard to find, but what are the odds that a self identified atheist was involved in dictionary creation prior to very recently? I would guess it is close to 0%, as probably less than 1% of earth's population would have called themselves atheist? Might explain the poor definition?

People who use "atheist" as part of a personal descriptor either assert a 'belief' that no gods exist...OR that it is much more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists. — Frank Apisa

I don't like the hard no (I don't mind the hard no in relation to every god that has been defined as there is something to refute, but we don't know what we don't know), but I am fine with the second one. That still makes the person an agnostic atheist (don't know for sure).

(both of which are nothing but blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence) — Frank Apisa

How is, "I have never seen evidence of that" a blind guess? The theist is approaching the question from such a different place, that they seem incapable of understanding that plenty of us are just fine not knowing and not even feeling the need to guess. Why would I guess when I have nothing to base the guess on? Hence why many atheists try to explain their "belief" as "a lack of belief".

Agnostics do not do that.

Some people do identify as agnostic-atheists or atheist-agnostics...and do make those blind guesses. But they use the "atheist" qualifier BECAUSE of those guesses.

I attempt not to use a descriptor unless needed for commentary like this, but here is how I describe my agnosticism:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

So if someone asks "do you believe in a god?" does your head just explode because you can't even answer that question? That question is entirely binary. There is no 3rd option. Answering "I don't know" is identical to answering "no, but I am not sure". Surely you would know if there was a god you do believe in?

If the word is not ambiguous...why are there so many arguments about strong-atheism or weak-atheism...and why does that distinction come up so often in Internet discussions... — Frank Apisa

For the same reason that Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for centuries. They are all "Christian", why the disagreement?

The only time the distinction between strong and weak seems to be made...is during these kinds of discussions. Meet someone in the real world who is an atheist...and that person will use "atheist." — Frank Apisa

I live in America, so I don't really tell people I am atheist until I know them. I try to avoid making other people uncomfortable and religious folk are uncomfortable with atheists. They DO like agnostics much better (in fact, I started calling myself atheist because religious people are far too inclusive of agnostics - they assume they are searching for god and just haven't found him yet - I needed to separate myself from that position, even if just in my own head).

Wonder what they mean. — Frank Apisa

But you don't wonder what they mean every time someone tells you they are "Christian"?

Do they believe in hell?

Is the sabbath Saturday or Sunday?

Do gay people go to heaven?

Should adulterers be stoned?

I could do about a hundred of these if we need more.

Whichever...they are asserting a blind guess...which their counterparts "theists" call 'beliefs.' — Frank Apisa

Despite everything I have said, I too have seen many atheists being "assertive". I typically argue with them too :grin:






.

The difference between atheists and agnostics isn't in a lack of belief in God, both can have that. The difference is that the atheist interprets the lack of belief as meaning there's no reason to believe in any real possibility and the agnostic interprets the lack of belief as a result of being unable to determine either way.


The problem is that people don't always realise that they disagree with each other because they don't explore deeply enough their positions. When they do that, they find that the fundamental disagreement lies not where they thought it was but prior that, in their words. So someone wants to talk about "how important is intelligence in a relationship?" for example but in order to talk about that, you need to break down what intelligence is. They could refrain from using the word and instead break down the various components of intelligence but that wouldn't necessarily help, you're still going to debate interpretations.

The real problem in my view is that when someone uses a word, they're not aware that word is being subjectively defined by them using arguments they are or are not aware of. When you list the components of intelligence, you're making an argument for what intelligence is and what constitutes it. When others have a different understanding/interpretation, each wrongly believes that the other person has got it wrong and is being unreasonable. Being unable to determine when someone has actually stepped outside the bounds of the general definition of a word and when they're challenging your argument.

You can clearly see that with @Frank Apisa in his example, the problem here isn't that agnosticism or atheism are vague, there's a fundamental disagreement here about the meaning of the terms. Agnosticism is actually pretty clearly defined but that doesn't mean we have the same understanding of what an agnostic is. It's the same for most words and realistically if you're going to try to talk about something controversial then you should prepare yourself to be mostly debating interpretations.

Thank you for your lengthy response, ZhouBoTong. (Is there a shorter name I can use and still show respect?)

Rather than respond to the entire post...I will take this in stages, because I think the issue is important. Perhaps we can discover where we agree and where we are in substantial disagreement.

Atheist is a descriptor...almost always self-assigned. Here, people are attempting to assign it to me as a result of (supposed) definition...and I am opposing that effort. (We'll get to the definition of both "atheism" and "believe" later.)

In my experience, one of the key (essential) elements of a person using "atheist" in any form (atheist, strong or explicit atheist, weak or implicit atheist, agnostic atheist)...is because the individual feels either certainty that no gods exist; has a "belief" (something less than certainty) that no gods exist; or has an opinion that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one exists."

Does this differ from your experience?

Have you ever encountered any person who identify themselves using the word "atheist" who is totally uncertain of the existence of gods,,,and does not see the likelihood of "no gods" as being greater than the likelihood of "at least one?"

Thank you for your lengthy response, ZhouBoTong. (Is there a shorter name I can use and still show respect?) — Frank Apisa

Sure, as far as I am concerned, you taking the time to respond is more than enough respect for me :smile: Zhou is fine, BoTong also works. ZBT is another common option, and since there are hardly any names starting with z, I am fine with Z too. As long as I know you are talking to me, it works.

Have you ever encountered any person who identify themselves using the word "atheist" who is totally uncertain of the existence of gods,,,and does not see the likelihood of "no gods" as being greater than the likelihood of "at least one?" — Frank Apisa

As soon as you say "totally uncertain" I do not think there are very many atheists that fit that. But what does "totally uncertain" mean? Is that realistic? Everyone can conceive of a god based on some basic definitions, therefor, as soon as someone is asked to think about it, they will have a minimal opinion at least. If you don't know what a god is, then you don't believe in one, so by definition that makes a person atheist (sorry when I use "you" I often mean "a person").

I apologize, I did not have enough time for this. This is a quick response, but I will try to give it a bit more thought.

i agree. I think people who think because they have the corner on a definition very often miss the notion that their could be one or more key pieces of data or information that could drastically change what the objective truth is assuming there is such a thing as objective truth.

The use of generality in mathematics is that it allows abstractions (e.g., thoerem proved about an abstract triangle) to be applied to a multitude of situations: piece of land, movement of celestial bodies, trajectory of a ball, whatever.

Generality becomes specific when it is applied to the concrete. Generality gives movement to concepts/abstractions. In detaching from the material to the ideal, concepts are born. Generality is this detachment, or perhaps it is the realm where concepts flow (yeah there's some poetic licence here).

We could not even think metaphysical without the ability to generalise.

I would actually say that most problems with the word "atheist" come from people assuming a more specific definition than the word actually entails. — ZhouBoTong

Exactly. :up: There are some contexts, at least, where "atheist" is used in a deliberately general sense. And it is used usefully in this sense. I am not arguing that we should replace specific terms with general ones, or specific discussions with general ones, but I am arguing that general terms and discussion have and deserve their place in our cogitations. Sometimes, trying to be too specific detracts from what we're trying to convey.

General and specific; each can be worthwhile, yes?

You can clearly see that with Frank Apisa in his example, the problem here isn't that agnosticism or atheism are vague, there's a fundamental disagreement here about the meaning of the terms. — Judaka

There is surely disagreement about the meaning of these terms, but is it "fundamental"? I don't really think so. All of the various meanings show shades of meaning, but not fundamentally different definitions. The general meaning really does cover all of the more specific ones, for any and all general purposes. And if the discussion moves to a more specific context, then the terms need greater clarity. I struggle to see anything here that anyone might disagree with....

The use of generality in mathematics is that it allows abstractions (e.g., thoerem proved about an abstract triangle) to be applied to a multitude of situations: piece of land, movement of celestial bodies, trajectory of a ball, whatever.

Generality becomes specific when it is applied to the concrete. Generality gives movement to concepts/abstractions. In detaching from the material to the ideal, concepts are born. Generality is this detachment, or perhaps it is the realm where concepts flow (yeah there's some poetic licence here).

We could not even think metaphysical without the ability to generalise. — emancipate

Nice post. :up:

The thing I am attempting to communicate is that every individual I have ever met or know of...who uses the word "atheist" as part of a descriptor...

...either asserts that no gods exist...

...or expresses a "belief" that no gods exist...

...or expresses an opinion that it is more probable that no gods exist than that at least one does.

The reason that has significance is because many people insist that individuals such as myself...are atheists by virtue solely of "a lack of 'belief' in any gods."

I am saying that "atheist" has more to it.

I most assuredly do not assert there are no gods; I most assuredly never express a "belief" that no gods exist; and I most assuredly am not of the opinion that it is more probable that no gods exist than the reverse.

General and specific; each can be worthwhile, yes? — Pattern-chaser

Definitely. This topic is interesting too, in that many people (all of us?) seem to have problems with some words being used generally, but are perfectly fine using other words generally. I think when I have a problem with words being used generally it is more because society has started using the word(s) flippantly to the point that they can have nearly opposite potential meanings ("conservative" and "liberal" are 2 words where I need more information to even begin to guess what they mean in any given context, and of course "literally" now generally means "figuratively"). If everyone gave dictionaries a bit more authority, it would solve a lot of problems - but even dictionaries change over time so it wouldn't solve everything.

The thing I am attempting to communicate is that every individual I have ever met or know of...who uses the word "atheist" as part of a descriptor... — Frank Apisa

While I think we are partially on topic, I think most of our discussion will be better served in that newer agnosticism thread (title is something like "why people don't say I don't know").

I will try to read all of that one and get caught up before getting involved so you don't have to repeat yourself (too much, hehe).

I think when I have a problem with words being used generally it is more because society has started using the word(s) flippantly to the point that they can have nearly opposite potential meanings ("conservative" and "liberal" are 2 words where I need more information to even begin to guess what they mean in any given context, and of course "literally" now generally means "figuratively"). If everyone gave dictionaries a bit more authority, it would solve a lot of problems - but even dictionaries change over time so it wouldn't solve everything. — ZhouBoTong

Here I think acceptance is of more use than challenge. Language really is a democratic institution, and its usage is dictated solely by its users. So, a few years ago, "bad" came to mean good, in everyday parlance. It doesn't really matter whether you or I like it; it just is.

Giving dictionaries more authority is, I think, an unachievable aim. The users of our language currently hold that authority, as they always have, and probably always will. I can't see language users losing their authority over their own language, can you? And, even if it was possible, would you really want it to happen? Consider, if dictionaries have authority, where does this authority rest? With one or a few senior dictionary executives, or something similar. What has been gained? :wink:

Here I think acceptance is of more use than challenge. Language really is a democratic institution, and its usage is dictated solely by its users. So, a few years ago, "bad" came to mean good, in everyday parlance. It doesn't really matter whether you or I like it; it just is.

Giving dictionaries more authority is, I think, an unachievable aim. The users of our language currently hold that authority, as they always have, and probably always will. I can't see language users losing their authority over their own language, can you? And, even if it was possible, would you really want it to happen? Consider, if dictionaries have authority, where does this authority rest? With one or a few senior dictionary executives, or something similar. What has been gained? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

At best, a dictionary can give us the etymology of the word...and an idea of how it is used currently.

That helps...but is not authoritative.

Most people writing in the forums give an explanation of how they are using a word when they use it in an unconventional way.

Works for me.

:up:

Here I think acceptance is of more use than challenge. — Pattern-chaser

Unquestionably true, but I seem to enjoy whining about it anyway :grin:

Giving dictionaries more authority is, I think, an unachievable aim. — Pattern-chaser

I realize that authority was a problematic word in that case. What I meant by "more authority" was simply a type of tie breaker that allows the conversation to accept a definition and move on. However, you are right to point out that today's dictionary definitions may change with usage, so that is hardly a type of authority.

Consider, if dictionaries have authority, where does this authority rest? — Pattern-chaser

Well notice that something like wikipedia would allow the language users themselves to be the ones to create and constantly update and modify the "dictionary". Consensus and evidence then determine what stays and what changes.

What has been gained? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Well, not much. Just the ability to feel superior knowing the "right" definition (and maybe a tiny bit of time savings). And as I am trying to rid myself of the need to feel superior (as much as my logical brain understands the emptiness of superiority, my emotional brain just loves it), it really is not much.

That helps...but is not authoritative. — Frank Apisa

Yes I am struggling with word choice (I feel like there must be a joke related to this statement considering the topic of this thread), I tried to soften my language a bit above. The wikipedia version of a dictionary does seem to answer a lot of the problems (it would give a type of "authority" for a person to reference, while leaving the authority in the hands of the language users themselves). But I am willing to admit, that doing that does not suddenly solve all of the problems mentioned in this thread, so not too important.

Well notice that something like wikipedia would allow the language users themselves to be the ones to create and constantly update and modify the "dictionary". Consensus and evidence then determine what stays and what changes. — ZhouBoTong

Yes, although Wikipedia is not quite the democratic organisation it used to be. Too many hurdles to get over to become an editor. Still, as you say, it's the best way to implement a useful and worthwhile dictionary. :up:

Here is a site I have used for years. Put a word into it...and you will get the word as defined in 10 - 30 different dictionaries.

https://www.onelook.com/


I also use this one for etymology:

https://www.etymonline.com

Here is a site I have used for years. Put a word into it...and you will get the word as defined in 10 - 30 different dictionaries.

https://www.onelook.com/ — Frank Apisa

Well that should be useful on this website :grin: Or just a starting off point for more debate, haha. In any case, a useful resource, thank you.

Here is something I just read from whitehead:

“The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. It starts from the
ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative
generalization; and it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute by rational
interpretation”