PLEASE NOTE:

MyNews24 is a user-generated section of News24.com. The stories here come from users.

 
shaunstanley
 
Comments: 166
Article views: 2978
 
 
Latest Badges:



 
View all shaunstanley's badges.
 

Atheism Is Not a Life Stance

21 November 2012, 07:05

This serves as a response to Sharksterll’s article, “The Question of Life Stance”. Through my discussion I try to expose some of the mistakes that were made in that article. I hope this will bring clarity and more sophistication to the debate.


I would implore Sharksterll, and his sympathizers, to finally leave the discussion of ‘life-stance’ alone. This position, as well as a variety of others that have come up from particular contributors, are attempts, it seems to me, at obscurantism. They deviate from the real issues, and cause people to focus on what is very unimportant. I hope this discussion will shed some light on these issues.


Are children born atheists?


There might be confusion here with regards to what is known as the ‘presumption of atheism’ – the idea that ‘atheism’ ought to be ones default position. This applies, I think, to ‘weak atheism’ which we may call ‘the lack of belief in God’. Weak atheism should be the default position because weak atheists do not make any positive claims. Theists, who assert that God exists, make positive claims, and hence the burden of proof lies with those theists. I doubt this can apply to ‘strong atheism’ which we may call ‘disbelief in God’ or ‘the belief that there is no God’. This concerns, only, the proper nature of, and the correct conduct to be expected in, the debates about the existence of God.


This is somewhat unrelated to the less interesting question of whether children are atheists to begin with. Sharksterll takes atheism to be the ‘denial of God’s existence’. One can only be an atheist, he thinks, when one consciously denies the existence of God. In this way it is quite clear that children couldn’t be atheists before they were theists, for then they would have nothing to ‘deny’.


This represents confusion between ones identifying as an atheist and ones in fact being an atheist. One needn’t identify as an atheist in order to be an atheist; at the very least these are two distinct ‘ways of being’ an atheist. Children do not, probably, identify as ‘atheists’: were one to ask their religious perspectives they might not even know what such a question meant. Nevertheless they would lack a belief in God until they were taught about it. It is in this sense that children are born (weak) atheists.


This is, after all, rather intuitive. Church, Sunday-school, religious youth camps and religious education in schools are testaments to the reality that children do not, in fact, have proper knowledge of God or of religion until these concepts are taught to them.


Further, Sharksterll problematically defines atheism as ‘the denial of God’s existence’. There are, to be sure, different reasons for being an atheist (some of which I would object to). Perhaps some people hate authority, or rejecting their ‘personal responsibilities’. Perhaps some see good reasons to disbelieve, and perhaps others simply so no reason to believe. What is common to all of these ‘modes’ is the absence of a belief that God(s) exists.


If we wish to define ‘atheism’ then this is the definition which should give us the least trouble and simultaneously be the most accurate. This definition says nothing at all about whether or not one is rational if they are an atheist. Nor does it give any indication of what ones reasons (if any even exist) for being an atheist are. Nor does it say anything about which ‘kind’ of atheist one is (strong versus weak). Those are separate questions.


I think it is quite fair to say that the presumption of (weak) atheism holds, and that the believer ought to be able to provide evidence or reasons for his belief. I think if one is a strong atheist then they probably should have some reasons ready to defend their positive assertion that there is no God. It seems clear that children cannot deny the existence of God without first knowing what God is – this doesn’t mean that children are not firstly atheists. An atheist is someone with an absence of belief in God (it matters not whether someone can consciously identify as an atheist). Clearly children have an absence of belief in God, and so clearly children are born atheists. This is, of course, the reason why there are so many educational institutions which exist to teach people about God.


Is atheism a ‘life stance’?


It is easy to become confused with language, and one of the chief confusions here has got to do with what ‘atheism’ is and what (some) ‘atheists’ might stand for. Atheism, as I have defined it above, is an ontological and epistemological position. It is ontological in that it has implications for ‘what exists’ and it is epistemological in the sense that it might deal with knowledge or rational belief or disbelief in what does or does not exist.


Atheism, we can say, asks two principle questions: ‘what exists?’ and ‘what should we believe?’ To the first question the atheist must reply, whatever else he says, that were he to investigate the ‘set of all things which existed’ he would not find something that could properly be called ‘God’. As to the question of what one should believe, I imagine that a weak atheist can say simply that one should believe those propositions for which there exists good supportive evidence. He does not see good supportive evidence for the existence of ‘God’ and so fails to acquire a belief in the existence of ‘God’. This then leads him, upon his investigation of what exists, to fail to find in that set anything that can be called ‘God’.


To fail to find, in the set of things which exists, something called ‘God’ is not to be related to some theory or presumption of ultimate importance. To feel that one should have adequate reasons for believing something seems to be a general operating principle of human beings.  Perhaps everyone is related to this ‘presumption of ultimate importance’; but to argue along those lines seems to deflate the concept of a ‘life-stance’ to the point of insipidity.


In any case, what one would be ‘related’ to then is not ‘atheism’, as such, but a general principle with which to operate in the world (the commitment to rationality). Atheism becomes then an indirect result of rationality, but is not rationality itself – so I don’t think Sharksterll should take this line of thought further. So, we cannot describe atheism as a ‘life-stance’ if we wish for that word to retain any of its meaning.


This is all to be distinguished with what ‘atheists’ stand for. Sharksterll had quoted Mememan who spoke about atheists being informed by science, humanism, ecology, sense experience and so on. These are Mememan’s perspectives, and it is quite clear that many would agree with him. But even if someone disagreed with him entirely, he would still be an ‘atheist’ so long as he lacked a belief in God. Mememan’s scientific, moral and political views are beside the point of his ‘atheism’. Of course, perhaps his atheism was informed by those things, but that would not change the nature of atheism itself: which at base reflects an absence of belief in God.


Perhaps Sharksterll can accuse Mememan of having a life-stance with regards to humanism and his appreciation of science. I should think the more important question is whether or not he could justify why he thought those things were of value. I should think then, ironically, that he would need to engage in some philosophy to do so. The point is, however, that I think one could certainly justify why one should have a scientific, as opposed to unscientific, world view. One might subject humanism to the same treatment. If this route of ‘justification’ represents a ‘life-stance’ with regards to rationality and reason, then I should think, again, that this reduces the concept of life-stance to insignificance.


It seems, then, that there is no real reason to classify ‘atheism’ as a life-stance. Further, it seems that what is important is whether one can justify what they hold to be valuable. This might presuppose a relation to the ‘ultimate importance’ of reason and rationality, but I wouldn’t consider that to be much of a criticism, or even escapable – to accuse one, then, of having a ‘life-stance’ would be trivial.


Other loose ends


Sharksterll believes that atheists reject God because it disagrees with what they hold as ultimately important. In some sense this might be correct. I (a strong atheist) think that there are good reasons to disbelieve in the existence of God. I think that the concept of God contradicts certain things we know about the world, and is also an incoherent concept. Valuing logic, the concept of God disagrees with logical coherence (or, so I am willing to argue). Others find that there is no good reason to believe that God exists, and so it seems to contradict some standard of rationality.


This is not to be an atheist unreasonably, nor is it to hold a dogmatic party line about the non-existence of God. Rather, it is an attempt to be reasonable, and it is from that attempt that ‘atheism’ is derived. The argument can be had as to whether the atheist position is, in fact, reasonable – but that is a separate issue.


However, someone needn’t be exercising their reason in order to be an atheist. Atheism, simply, is the absence of belief in God – how that is derived is a separate issue, and surely there are better and worse ways to derive such a position. So, perhaps, some people are atheists through an exercise of their “ability to reject responsibility for ones actions”, as Sharksterll believes. But this has no bearing on what ‘atheism’ is. Surely we should oppose those people who wish to shirk their personal responsibility. But in doing so we are not opposing ‘atheism’, but rather a particular mode of behavior and thought. Sharksterll confuses ones ‘reasons for’ atheism with ‘atheism’ itself – this is, I hope I have shown, erroneous in the extreme.


Concluding


This article has not been intended as a demonstration of atheism, or as a refutation of theism. This is a commentary from someone who has been, for some time, on the sideline watching other people lead the discussion. I have been disappointed at certain people’s failure to appreciate the position of the opposite side. I hope that Sharksterll reads this and thinks about what I have written, and I hope I have expressed myself clearly enough so that he can see the genuine mistakes in his previous articles. This is much less a criticism than it is an honest attempt to rectify certain errors which only detract from the value of these kinds of discussions.

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
 

Read News24’s Comments Policy

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
166 comments
Add your comment
Comment 0 characters remaining

Read more from our Users

Submitted by
Angua Wolf
Has the SA dream failed?

South Africa is like a baby who had a difficult pregnancy, a relatively trouble free birth, and has now developed severe complications. Read more...

3 comments 88 views
Submitted by
Maria Joubert Muller
Fingerprint biometrics at the ATM

People from different walks of life have voiced both positive and negative aspects of the technology, and many biometrics experts have argued both sides of the coin. Read more...

5 comments 137 views
Submitted by
The Scribe
Fake Photoshopped Pictures Fuel U...

My plea today is to all those who share images on social platforms without thinking twice! Read more...

4 comments 1129 views
Submitted by
Guy Alain Lukoki
Your children are not heirs of yo...

Jacob was chosen by God and blessed by his father. He had divine visions and heard the voice of God when he was running from his brother’s wrath.  Read more...

8 comments 241 views
Submitted by
Eric Rimmer
Proof of Heaven & Hell

The answer was purportedly in response to the bonus question on a University of Arizona chemistry midterm: “Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?” Read more...

16 comments 999 views
Submitted by
Kurt Ellis
The Real Housewives of Nkandla - ...

Jacob Zuma stared at the page in front of him. His brow creased with concentration as a single bead of sweat meandered down his temple. Read more...

1 comments 448 views

Jobs in Cape Town [change area]

Property [change area]

Travel - Look, Book, Go!

Escape winter, head to Mauritius

Escape winter by spending 7 nights in Mauritius' tropical bliss from R13 215 per person sharing. Includes return flights, airport transfers and accommodation. Book now!

Kalahari.com - shop online today

Welcome on board the kalahari.com 24 hour sale on books!

Today only, buy 1 book and get 1 FREE on the top 100 books. Offer expires midnight 23 April. While stocks last. Shop now!

Get 50% off selected books!

Buy 2 books and get 50% off the second book. Offer valid while stocks last. Shop now!

Mother’s Day special offers!

Spoil mom with these awesome specials that will warm her heart. Shop now!

Twisp – the smoking alternative

Buy any 2 refills for R250 and save R149. Offer valid while stocks last. Shop now!

25% off bestselling books!

The Real Meal Revolution by Tim Noakes, Jeffrey Archer’s Be Careful What You Wish for, Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor E. Frank and many more titles. Shop now!

OLX Free Classifieds [change area]

Samsung Galaxy s4

Mobile, Cell Phones in South Africa, Western Cape, Cape Town. Date October 24

Best bargain in big bay

Real Estate, Houses - Apartments for Sale in South Africa, Western Cape, Cape Town. Date October 25

VW Golf 6, 1.6 Trendline (Excellent condition)

Vehicles, Cars in South Africa, Western Cape, Cape Town. Date October 25

 

services

E-mail Alerts The latest headlines in your inbox

RSS feeds News delivered really simply.

Mobile News24 on your mobile or PDA

E-mail Newsletters You choose what you want

News24 on your iPhone Get News24 headlines on your iPhone.

SMS Alerts Get breaking news stories via SMS.

Blogs Your opinion on you, me and everyone.

Calais Website keywords automated by OpenCalais.

 
Interactive Advertising Bureau
 
© 2014 24.com. All rights reserved.
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.
 
English
Afrikaans
isiZulu

Hello 

Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.


Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.

Settings

Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.








Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.