CARSON: But you're an atheist when it comes to Hinduism, Sarah.
DAVID: Um, an 'atheist' is someone who has no belief in ANY gods. Ergo, Sarah cannot be an atheist in any sense, for she believes in at least one God.
CARSON: But she does not believe in all gods.
DAVID: Right, which means she is not a polytheist. But she is not an atheist. To call her an atheist takes a brutally illogical step. Or it butchers the definition of "atheist." One of the two. Neither is very flattering.
CARSON: I meant she didn't believe in the gods of Hinduism. Yeah, it butchers the definition of 'atheist'. I can handle that.
DAVID: Such an irresponsible and illogical definition of 'atheist' would mean that everyone throughout the whole world are atheists, rendering the term meaningless.
CARSON: I qualified it: "when it comes to Hinduism." Not ALL people are atheists when it comes to Hinduism.
DAVID: She is not an atheist when it comes to Hinduism, sir. She is a theist who rejects the gods of Hinduism.
This conversation recalled to my attention something Stephen Roberts was once proud of asserting (or perhaps still is): "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." With all due respect to Roberts as a person—whom I regarded as a friend for some years—that is one of the most incoherent and untenable statements I have heard an atheist make, a statement which Carson here seems to echo. It would be really appreciated if atheists could exhibit a little more consistently the rationality they so triumphantly espouse.
There is simply nothing rational about calling a theist an 'atheist' in any sense—it is, in fact, a direct logical contradiction. Although a Christian theist might reject the gods of Hinduism, that does not make her an atheist "when it comes to Hinduism." She is a theist nevertheless, because she affirms a belief in the God of Christian theism. There are gods that she rejects, certainly, but that only means she is not a polytheist; to say that it means she is somehow an atheist in any way is patently absurd. Those atheists who wish to stack the deck in favour of atheism should find another tactic, because this one makes a fool of them.
How's "I contend we are both unbelievers, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."?
ReplyDeleteChanging the word doesn't make the argument any less strong, but using "atheist" in this non-standard way draws attention to the fact that the other person does, in fact, hold a similar position to the atheist.
Feel free to argue linguistic semantics, but this does nothing to discredit the argument itself.
One ought to argue "semantics" on account of the equivocation being committed, a fallacy which changing the word does not avoid. Under the re-wording suggested by Rosalion, the fallacy is still present.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Roberts (or Carson, both of them atheists), what does he mean when he refers to himself as an "unbeliever"? He is an "unbeliever" in the sense that he does not believe in any possible gods. But when he refers to me (or Sarah, both of us Christians), he means I am an "unebeliever" in the sense that I do not believe in any gods but one, the God of Christian theism. There are two senses being employed simultaneously—all gods versus some gods—producing the equivocation, which is "the fallacy of using a word in different senses at different stages of the reasoning." And yes, fallacious arguments do indeed discredit themselves.
Ergo, changing the word (to successfully escape the equivocation) does change the argument, by weakening it to the point that it is no longer of any practical use.
"I believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."? - Me
ReplyDeleteHey David, Stephen here! After the quote came up in another forum I read, I ego-surfed across this post and figured I'd drop by and say hi!
ReplyDeleteYes, I know the usage of "atheist" in the quote is incorrect since if a person believes in any kind of god they are a theist, not an atheist. But I think it still work because it helps them to think about the fact that they are also non-believers for other gods.
But the real "meat" of the quote is the second part about how if the theist really understood why they don't believe in the other gods they might understand why their god is hard to believe in too.
If I would have been writing a philosophy book, I probably would have come up with better wording or at least better phrasing. But even with its flaws, its kind of nice to see the quote still wander around and mean something to some people :-)
"I believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." I liked that. Very succinct. I suggest you make a list of every other god, and why you don't believe in any of them. Then, turn to your belief in the christian god, and then see if your belief survives the same treatment. My guess is that it can't.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Richard. We can either sit here are argue the semantics and avoid the point of the quote, or admire the beautifully illustrated argument for the problems with religion. The problem of that "I am right and everone who believes in otherwise are wrong and might as well (literally) go to hell". The problem of that there are just as many peopel who are just as convienced that they beliefs are un-questionable.
ReplyDeleteAgnostics and some definitions of atheism believe that everything should be questioned. (This will include itself, and hence, saying that this idea is just like religion is not an option)
There is no place for religion in the an logical argument or logical debate.