Atheism: The Etymological Fallacy and its Misapplication

(v1.1)

It is becoming more frequent that I repeat the same arguments for different people on a daily basis, and very seldomly does this dialog progress. There is such a broad misunderstanding of Atheism and I see the conversation going nowhere because many Atheists I know cannot rigorously define their own position. They make concessions without realizing it about the contents of their beliefs.Common discussions between Atheists and Theists involve trying to undo all of the misconceptions about Atheism in the Theists mind because one cannot have any rational discouse with someone of an Abrahamic god without being stereotyped or strawmanned. An Atheist will ultimately either avoiding the conversation entirely or the conversation will consist entirely of the Atheist laboriously attempting to educate the Theist about what Atheism is and what it is not. I’ve had it put to me regularly by Theists that all forms of Atheism entail a direct disbelief in god(s), or a positive belief in the non-existence of god, rather than simply a designation of a mere absence of belief. I, as an Atheist, have attempted in the past to correct this misunderstanding and explain why it exists with little success at revising the misconceptions of Theists. More frequently now I run across this same misconception in the minds of Atheists who do not have a properly formed concept (meaning without contradiction) of Atheism and how it operates.

To begin I think it would be instructive for everyone to understand the fallacy in question. The Etymological Fallacy is the formal logical fallacy that this discussion is actually about, although seldom do the participants name it explicitly it is what they are arguing when arguing the meaning of Atheism.
Fallacy Files
“The etymological fallacy as a semantic error is the mistake of confusing the current meaning of a word with the meaning of one of its etymons, or of considering the meaning of the etymon to be the “real” or “true” meaning of the current word. If one’s goal is to communicate, then the “real” or “true” meaning of a word is its current meaning. Since the meanings of words change over time, often considerably, the meaning of an etymon may be very different from the current meaning of the word derived from it. The fact that a word historically derives from an etymon may be interesting, but it cannot tell us the current meaning of the word.”

To summarize my position, I don’t believe that the Etymon of the word Atheism is correct simply because it is the Etymon, but because it is the only logically defensible understanding of the concept. I also maintain that if we surrender the meaning of the word Atheism it will then, by definition, be an indefensible position. I’ll explain more on that later.

To summarize the flow of this argument, if I base my understanding of the word “Atheism” on a logically consistent argument then The Etymological Fallacy does not apply and the only standard which we then need be concerned about is its validity. If I base the concept of Atheism on a logically consistent argument, and point out the logical shortcomings of the common usage definition we should revise our conception of Atheism accordingly. The fallacy is only applicable if you appeal to the Etymon because you believe the Etymon itself is “more correct” than common usage definitions as a principle of definition, i.e., simply because it is the Etymon.

Atheism: Etymon vs. Common Usage (Teach the Controversy!)

To understand the Etymon of “Atheism” you have to understand a little bit about language and how it evolves. Atheism is derived from the root word “Theism.” Theism is derived from the Greek word theos (θεóς), which also means “god.” The suffix “ism” is used to signify a larger conceptual “organizational unit” which can represent a general belief or an entire belief system as applied in this example, and be subdivided into smaller units (sometimes other “isms”). Theism thus becomes a broad conceptual catchall categorization for “the belief in god or gods.” It isn’t in reference to one The’ist’, but to the belief of The’ism’. I draw a comparison between the linguistic function of ‘Theism’ and ‘Atheism’ because they are actually the same word (two sides of the same coin), one is merely modified with the prefix ‘A’ which means, “without.” Naturally, doing a little conceptual arithmatic you would add the two, “without” and “the belief in god or gods” to derrive the meaning of the word “Atheism.”

This contrasts sharply with the common usage of the word. It truly is the dominant usage because you can go right now (I encourage every reader to verify this for yourself) and find any dictionary you would like and confirm this. For an experiment I will do a simple Google search, for convenience, using the phrase “online dictionary” and post the results below for the term “Atheism.”

Dictionary.com
“The doctrine or belief that there is no God.”
“Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.”

Merriam Webster
“A disbelief in the existence of a deity.”
“The doctrine that there is no deity.”

YourDictionary.com
“The belief that there is no god.”
“The denial that god or gods exist.”

TheFreeDictionary.com
“Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods.”
“The doctrine that there is no God or gods.”

Those are only the results of the first four (most popular) links on Google. You can see a few common threads between these definitions already and you should compare these to any examples you chose to look up on your own. Describing Atheism as a “Doctrine” was mentioned in three of the four. Active disbelief, or positive beliefs in the non-existence of god, or active denials of the existence of god were common throughout. Describing the position as “The Denial” assumes that Theism is true. According to these definitions it would be necessary for a person to actively hold some positive beliefs and concepts about ”god” or “theism” before they can actively disbelieve in god. This is the crucial difference between the two meanings. Is Atheism necessarily a positive statement? This is the crucial mistake that invalidates the common usage, and if accepted, condemns Atheism.

If Atheism is necessarily burdened with proving the positive claim that an abstract undefined entity doesn’t exist, then it is burdened with the impossible task of disproving a negative. You can’t prove or disprove a negative. That is another reason referring to Atheism as “The Denial,” and assuming the correctness of Theism is improper, because it is implicitly claiming to have proven this negative, performing a logically impossible feat, and affirming the truth of Theism. It should be widely understood, although it isn’t, that it is not possible to prove or disprove a negative like “god” or “unicorns” or “goblins” or “The Flying Spaghettim0nst3r” or “A celestial teapot.” The common usage definition, by definition, burdens the concept of Atheism with so much to prove that it collapses under the weight of its own identity, rendering it an untenable position.

There is no formal argument for the common usage definition, other than that it is commonly used, i.e., reached through democratic (or dogmatic) vote. An implicit argument we could extrapolate from the position would be something like, “If the majority of people believe a word means X, then this definition is valid,” maybe even something like, “Might makes Right!” because what is this appeal to common usage if not an appeal to a majority with the power to enforce its definition by force?

We might revisit a few of those websites for another quick revelation about how this approach leads to obviously false misconceptions. Webster defines Atheism as a synonym for “Wickedness.” The FreeDictionary defines Atheism as a synonym for “Immorality.” These are common charges against Atheists. I’ve defended myself against these misconceptions in the past and will again in the future. The common argument goes something like this, “Without God, there is no reason to be Moral!” That is a separate argument entirely though, and beyond the scope of this paper. As an example, The Main Stream Media (the Republican portion anyway) is currently in the process of demonizing the wickedness of the “secular progressive movement.” “Secular” is just another way to say non-religious (or non-Christian), and is used as a politically correct sanitized smear word for Atheists. It is commonly said that The Founding Fathers of America were “secularists” because they didn’t want to mix religion with government or visa versa. This was a non-religious approach, or a “secular” approach to the construction of government.

Another common criticism of Atheism is that it has nothing to offer in the field of Ethics and is necessarily a morally destitute position (which is understandable, and almost valid, because Atheism has nothing to do with Ethics). Ethics is beyond the scope of Atheism, and in that respect I can agree with this criticism, but I would quickly point out that Atheists don’t “believe in” Atheism like some philosophy or doctrine becaues of its narrow scope, it’s usually one very small component in their overall worldview, like Buddhists for example. Keep in mind the definitions from the four most popular online dictionaries. Atheists, by common definition, are Immoral or Wicked or in some sense evil. It is obviously true that Atheists can lead a life that is ethical, or at least as ethical as any Christian. Should “Immorality” be a valid synonym, or ‘essential defining characteristic’ of “Atheism?” It should not, and is not a valid synonym. Why is it in the dictionary then?

Atheism: Understanding the Hierarchical Nature of Concepts

To review, ‘A-theism” is derived from the root word “Theism,” with a one letter modifier as a prefix. The entire Atheist position is completely contingent upon the existence of the Theist position. You cannot designate an absence of something before someone asserts the existence of that something. To illustrate with a fictitious parallel concept I will introduce the notion of “Chrolianism” right now.

I have created the designation for an absence before its presence exists. I would get some strange looks of bewilderment if asked about my belief, because no one has any idea what I’m talking about. Suppose that after I labeled myself an “Achrolian,” in a hundred or so years “Chrolians” begin emerging to disprove my absence of belief in “Chrolia.” Even though before the notion of Chrolia arose, everyone (by default) would have necessarily been “Without” Chrolianism, defining a position based on that absence would be as absurd as this example shows if done before it’s actual existence. However, once the Chrolians arise, forming their little early cults to spread Chrolianism… Achrolians would exist from that point on because a meaningful distinction now exists. To put it another way, It is only in the midst of positive beliefs, that a lack in those beliefs carries any significance. Atheists did not exist, and could not exist before Theists because the designation would have been so insignificant that no essential qualifiers, no characteristics, presented themselves that needed identified (defined). It would have been the equivalent of defining “Achrolianism.”

The concepts are opposites of one another (Theism and Atheism) (Chrolianism and Achrolianism), their broadness and descriptiveness correlate with the other because they are “talking on the same level” with one another and not past one another, or about different things. In the initial position we have a presence of a positive belief (Chrolianism and Theism) and in the opposite position we have an absence of that positive belief, it says nothing about additional positive beliefs. Being “Without Chrolianism” is “Achrolianism.” Being “Without Theism” is “Atheism.”

If the broadness of these two concepts correlate, each ought to have some kind of substructure. To expand on ones understanding of the conceptual structure of Atheism, one must understand that which its existence is contingent upon, Theism. Hierarchically these would be higher-level conceptual “organizational units” than something like “Christianity,” i.e., “Christianity is a form of Theism.” The specialized subcategories are to be considered lower-level conceptual “organizational units.” They are “lower” in that the foundation for a conceptual hierarchy is reality and perception and expands away from it while remain dependant upon it. So the more abstract we become the “higher” the level is that we are communicating on conceptually. If we were having a conversation about Theism, it would be a much Broader and Inclusive conversation than a conversation about Christianity. The transition from bottom to top can be illustrated in the following example. Entity (perception/reality) Chair (level 1) Furniture (level 2) Home Décor (level 3) Style (level 4) etc… the higher we move up the more abstract we become.

There is really no limit on our ability to abstract further and further upward. To demonstrate the broadness of Theism, it is not specifically belief in a “personal god” or even in a single god. Theism is a general category under which more specific variations and specialized forms of Theism fall. Consider the common element among different types of Theism and you’ll quickly see the hierarchy in which a more specialized concept is classified under a broader less descriptive concept.

Theism – (General) – “the belief in god or gods”

• Deism – “the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief that a god(s) does not interact with the universe.

• Monotheism – “the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief in, and worship of, a single god.

• Polytheism – “the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief in, and worship of, many gods.

• Pantheism – “the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief that God and the universe are equivalent, or belief that acknowledges other gods.

Suppose we wanted to ascribe an additional characteristic beyond the general to “Theism.” Then It would no longer apply to all of the Theisms that there are, and a new name for the “organizational unit” would be required if one wanted to refer to all of them at once. If ‘Theism’ specifically implied “the belief in one god”… you could not call “Polytheism” a subset of ‘Theism’ because it would by definition contradict the contents of the higher conceptual Organizational Unit. It would be like calling a “babies rattle” something like a piece of “furniture.” The achievement of this form of non-contradictory hierarchy of conceptual organizational units is what makes them a valid representation of our understanding. It is how we classify and identify our world to make it knowable. That is why these concepts occupy the conceptual positions they do, instead of elsewhere.

Is Atheism equally as divisible as Theism? You betcha! Be careful not to forget here that we are talking about ways in which to believe in god or gods, or not. We are not talking about the tens of thousands of religions that exist which all have difference conceptions of god and comparing that to Atheism because Atheism has nothing to do with religion. You’ll notice the same structure within different forms of Atheism. Atheism is as broad a concept as Theism is, and there are subcategories of Atheism just as there are subcategories of Theism. Just as one could accurately state, “Not all Theists are the same,” the same would apply in that, “Not all Atheists are the same.”

Atheism – (General) – “without (or, lack of) belief in god or gods”

• Agnosticism – “without (or, lack of) the belief in god or gods” and…
  The belief that one cannot know, or doesn’t know enough to decide.

• Ignorance – “without (or, lack of) belief in god or gods” and…
  “The condition of being uninformed or unaware of any conception or notion of god.”

• Nontheism – “without (or, lack of) the belief in god or gods” and…
  “The belief that Theism is wrong.”

• Antitheism – “without (or, lack of) the belief in god or gods” and…
  “The state of being opposition to Theism.”

• Humanism – “without (or, lack of) the belief in god or gods” and …
  ”Whatever humanists believe.”

Even if we leave out Agnosticism and Humanism we still have three or more valid differences between subsets of Atheism that exist which require their own word (Organizational Unit) that captures and signifies the difference. This makes Atheism a necessarily broad term if it is to be the hierarchical opposite of Theism and as non-descriptive a classification as Theism is. It also must be broad if it is to refer to all of the subsets which exist.

Using the term “organizational unit,” as it is used in Information Technology, I believe assists in what I’m trying to communicate about the hierarchy of the structure of these concepts. You can easily see the same structure described above in a hierarchical fashion below in a file structure. While I think this file structure is inadequate because it is two-dimensional, you will understand enough to get the meaning. I am also unconcerned with the actual conceptual structure of Atheistic positions (they could be argued differently than I am presenting here), all that I am interested in is communicating that some heirarchy does exist and that the concepts of “Atheism” and “Theism” are heirarchically on the same teir of abstraction.

Atheism: Common Usage as a Misidentification of Essential Characteristics

The conflict between the common usage and the argued meaning I am putting forth is a product of the misidentification of the essential defining characteristics of Atheism and historical enertia. The only difference between the two concepts is the modifier “A” meaning “without.” It’s understandable that one might commonsensically claim that the opposite of a positive belief in a god, is the positve disbelief in a god. That at least sounds superficially reasonable, although misguided. The difference isn’t between which positive belief one chooses, but whether or not one accepts a positive belief at all in the first place.

Theism makes the claim that “God Exists!” and one can choose whether or not to accept that, and then choose the manner in which one goes about believing it. If one chooses to accept it, one is a Theist, if one chooses not to accept it that doesn’t imply a positive disbelief in Theism. Theists have no way to escape the burden of proving the claim they make, “God Exists!” and because they have realized this vulnerability they level the charge that Atheism is equally burdened with disproving their positive claim in order to be correct. This is called the Fallacy of Shifting the Burden of proof. Theism existed before Atheism. Theism made a positive claim long before anyone questioned it. The positive claim of Theism has never been proven, the burden remains on theism to give anyone a good reason to take it seriously. When you make a positive claim to knowledge, you don’t ask someone else to disprove you and assume you are correct until that happens… you give evidence to support your claims. If a man walks into a restaurant and exclaims that he was just kidnapped by Aliens, we don’t assume he is telling the truth simply because no one is capable of disproving his claim. We would ask the man making the positive claim to tell us about it and prove to us that it actually happened. Until that happens no one need exert any effort in making positive claims disbelieving in his story, because he has put forth no effort to prove himself correct. He would just be disregarded, as most people would be ultimately unconcerned.

That lack of concern is the absence of a positive belief either way, that is the comparison to Atheism that can apply in a valid understanding (again, valid meaning non-contradictory). Atheism need not object to Theism in order to be “without” it, as the prefix indicates. The essential defining characteristic of Atheism therefor is not a positive belief.

Atheism: Common Usage is Self-Contradictory

To demonstrate another contradiction… there is a stark contrast between how common usage is employed and what those who commonly employ it mean when they say it. How they, who advocate that it is a positive belief, apply the concept is the proof that the current definition is the wrong one. The scope doesn’t apply to all Atheists when the current definition is used because some atheists simply lack belief, while the current definition implies a positive belief. It doesn’t apply because some atheists are very interested in leading ethical lives. The way in which the word is used is to refer to a large general group, yet what the word means as they define it limits the group of people it refers to by including a positive belief in the non-existence of god. It attempts to be broad and refer to all Atheists, while its contents are specific to only those Atheists who affirm an active disbelief in Theism. This doesn’t stop those who misunderstand the word from misapplying it. It’s a simple attempt to have ones cake and eat it too. Common usage is used broadly to be inclusive, and generally to refer to a group of vastly different people, (this clues us in on its position in the hierarchy being equally as broad in scope as Theism) while its meaning renders it inapplicable to most of whom it is applied. It is as if I were to refer to all Theists as “MonoTheists” and use the word in a way as to include all Deists, Pantheists, and Polytheists as well. I am actually only refering to a specific “sect” of Theists, but I am using the word broadly and improperly, mislabeling some Theists. The common usage meaning of Atheism doesn’t apply to Agnostics, the ignorant, or Nontheists. The definition I am defending is adequately descriptive to include all of these positions with respect to Theism.

Atheism: How the Position Actually Works

Given the above presentation and clarification many should be wondering how the position actually works… since the common understanding is wrong… and many current Atheists don’t understand their own position I’ll elaborate at length here. It is fundamental to understand that Atheism exists with respect to Theism at all times, which is why I view the Atheist position with fluidity because there are many Theisms and thus many different conceptions of god. If a Christian were to walk up and ask me what my position is, I would respond that I am a Strong Atheist (to be general) with respect to the concept of the Christian God and probably Anti-theist with respect to how he goes about believing it. What we have here with the Christian god is a working Concept of what god’s identity might be, and we can analyze what Christianity believes god is and logically invalidate it with a few arguments based on their positive claims. The Omni-God argument is especially susceptible, just to name one for any Christians who might be reading this. The Problem of Evil also demolishes it. So, using those two arguments and many more, we can make a claim of 100% absolute certainty that the Christian god does not… and cannot possibly exist. This level of certainty about the incorrectness of this particular concept of god would classify one as a Non-Theist. If I were to move from the acknowledgment of the incorrectness of Christianity into the active opposition to Christianity I would then be an Antitheist with respect to that specific sect of Theism. That level of certainty is not, and need not be, always available to an Atheist.

In the case of Deists and Panetheists who believe in a very abstract impersonal generic god we have really nothing to work with conceptually like we would an Omni-God with the commonly accepted characteristics of the Christian god. So at best an Atheist can ‘lack belief in god’ where active opposition would be as much of an irrational claim as Theism is. With respect to Pantheists who believe that “god is nature” we really have nothing to evaluate either. We might ask why in the hell someone would seek to replace the valid concept of “nature” or “reality” with “god,” but we would not be able to disprove that notion based on his or her own Concept of god. We would just treat these people like the man in the restaurant who is claiming to have been abducted by aliens, with a lack of concern or disregard. We choose not to affirm their belief, and at the same time find no reason to disbelieve what they are saying because no consideration of an illdefined concept is possible. By default I describe myself as an Atheist in the general sense because I’m not even concerned with the incorrectness of the panetheist position, I just lack belief in it.

The point is that depending on the concept of god I am presented with I may shift between different types of Atheism keeping in mind my transition is constantly with respect to the particular conception of god.

Most of the time I end up as either a Nontheist or an Antitheist. This requires that I clarify the difference between Non-Theists and Anti-Theists. The prefix “anti” means “Against” whatever noun it is modifying. Anti-Theism would be “Against Theism.” Antitheism represents the positive opposition on an intellectual level (but is not limited to an intellectual activity) to the existence of some kind of Theism. This subgroup of Atheism is actually who those ascribe to common usage are referring to when they say “Atheist.” Not all Atheists oppose theism, or even care about it at all. The classification of Antitheists takes an aggressive position. The prefix “non” means “Not” whatever noun it is modifying, it is a negation of what is being modified. Nontheism means “Not Theism” and designates a concern with the incorrectness of Theism, but not necessarily any opposition to Theism. A Nontheist could be someone, for example, who has no belief in god but who may defend theism because of perceived social benefits (maybe Daniel Dennett would qualify, as he believes we just ought to rework religion instead of just dump it). While an AntiTheist would be someone who would make no such allowance for it. I think Christopher Hitchens is the best example of a well known Antitheist, as he believes that “religion poisons everything.” Richard Dawkins seems more interested in the incorrectness of theism, because he does use jargon like “I’m a cultural Christian” implying that he does perceive some social benefit to the organizational power of religious control. He wouldn’t phrase it like that though I’m sure. In a dispute between Science and Religion he will negate the validity of religion and assert the correctness of Science, while remaining a “Cultural Christian.” I agree with Hitchen’s viewpoint the most out of all of the Four Horsemen. For another example, Karl Marx would classify as a Nontheist because he believed that “religion is the opium of the masses” but didn’t believe the masses need not be drugged. Nietzsche and Lucretius would qualify as Antitheists as well because they perceived that religion was a great force of evil, or that it was interfering in the natural evolution of man.

I think one could classify Antitheism as a specialized form of Nontheism, or a cousin of some kind at least, but a problem comes about because you really have nothing to differentiate it with inside the Organization Unit of “NonTheism.” Without differentiation within that context there can be no concept formation in that context, so I think they must remain on the same conceptual teir. In other words, there would need to be at least two categories under “Nontheism” in order for any distinction to be necessary. Where no distinctions exist, no concepts are needed for referencing that distinction. For example, the concept of “Color” wouldn’t exist if there were only one color. They both share the common trait “The belief that Theism is wrong” certainly.

Semantical arguments like mine are primarily concerned with the validity of a particular concept. In evaluating conceptual validity, the more positive claims that are contained within a concept, the more essential characteristics are available for logical falsification. Logically valid conceptions of god, and general or vague concepts, are immune from logical criticism. One can still be “Without Belief” in the metaphysical existence of a god described by a logically coherent concept without positively rejecting the notion. This ‘demographic’ is brushed over in the common usage. The reason may be because it is Christians who are the majority who are determining what the common usage is. Christians make up a third of the U.S. population. Theists probably comprise a much larger percentage of the world population. This historical enertia of misusage is what needs to be changed in the same way the misconceptions of homosexuality changed. It could be a simple byproduct of a centrism in which Christians disregard the fact that their mythology is simply one among many… and that because it is a logically invalid mythology they are most often exposed to claims of positive disbelief. Encountering active opposition, being the majority, would certainly affect what the common usage definition is. I am suggesting that this is exactly how it happened.

~ by spaghettim0nst3r on January 14, 2008.