Without God

Some things come around again and again, and this is one of those things. It requires discussion because it seems to have become the substance of an attempted paradigm shift within the Atheist community. Paradigm shifts occur for a reason, and that will be discussed later. First we will discuss the new paradigm itself.

Despite claiming that “there is no God”, it now is declared that that statement is not a denial. Instead of a denial, it is a declaration that the Atheist is “without God”. How does this work?

How does a person come to be “without God”? And that without a denial? The first thought might be that the person had never heard of such a thing as a deity, a First Cause, a God. That would definitely leave the person without God, unless the person had a personal experience of the deity. Presuming it not the case that the person has had a personal experience of the deity, then that person would be “without God”. But that is not the Atheist condition.

Now if a person has heard of the possibility of such a thing as a deity, First Cause, or God, then how can the person claim to be “without God”, unless the possibility has been first rejected? In fact, the statement is a surreptitious truncation of this statement: "I reject God; therefore I am without God". Nonetheless, let's pursue the truncated claim.

If the possibility of a deity is not rejected, but is rather accepted, then the person cannot be an Atheist.

If the possibility of a deity is placed on hold pending the receipt of further evidence, then the person has assumed a stance traditionally known as “agnosticism”.

What other choices are available beyond a) reject; b) accept; c) place the decision on hold? Perhaps: continue in ignorance, having forgotten the whole thing? Atheists have not forgotten the whole thing.

Atheists have, during the enlightenment centuries and up until recently, directly and positively rejected the existence of deity without trying to conceal that in any form of word play. The exceptions are in places and times of persecution, which did exist: Hume rejected the deity but claimed to be a “sceptic”, in order to get a job professoring at the university – he was rejected because his claim was false.(Note 1) But now the Atheists are not persecuted, yet they insist on disguising their true belief behind word-play.

Atheists do not place the decision regarding the existence of deity on hold. Their claim of "without God" is made on the basis of having rejected God.(Note 2) So taking that position is a move taken to camouflage their actual rejection, and to protect themselves against an uncomfortable truth: Atheism cannot be proved using Atheist criteria for proof.

The paradigm is being consciously shifted because Atheism is vulnerable. It makes demands of others that it cannot satisfy itself. It resolves to a position of unproven and unprovable Faith, a religion in the same sense that Atheists define religion. That is the reason for the paradigm shift amongst Atheists during the past decade: they cannot admit to having denied [Q], because they cannot prove their claim of non-existence of [Q]. So they change their stance, rather than change their position. Rather than admit that they believe in a faith-statement, they deny their belief, and conceal it with a new statement claiming that they have not denied [Q]. This, they think, protects them from having to prove their position.

If they do not deny [Q], and they don’t believe [Q], then they are by traditional definition, agnostic on the subject of [Q]. (Or ignorant of the subject of [Q] altogether). And while claiming faux-atheism in the form of agnosticism outwardly, they think that they are not obliged to prove their position any longer.

It is agnostic-envy. And outright theft of the agnostic position.

To claim to believe in, say, [Z] while not really believing in [Z] is dishonest. There is no other way to say that, that I can see: it is dishonest. And at that point it becomes legitimate to ask, “why one would continue a discussion under those conditions, when the other side of the conversation is dishonest?” What rational conclusion can come from such a discussion, other than it is not ever profitable?

It is a clear indication of the religious, dogmatic character of Atheism: claiming to be logical and fact-oriented on the one hand, and blatantly dishonest on the other when it comes to providing “real” and “material” facts for supporting its own belief system - yet requiring just exactly that of competing belief systems. The conclusion, (no God), is more important than actual logic or actual facts to support it. The conclusion, (no God), is a purely religious tenet.

Atheists back-slap each other (virtually) on the cleverness of their ruse. But it is so totally transparent to outsiders that it diminishes the credibility of Atheism drastically. Maybe they have come to believe their own deception. That again says something about the rationality of Atheism.

Notes:
1) Hume considered himself discriminated against due to his Atheism; possibly. But it is also possible that he was not hired because he was a liar.

2) For a short time it was common to hear Atheists claim that they have "no god theory". That was transparent, even to Atheists. So now they have a new claim.

Logic Class Lesson 2

Language is the currency with which we transact ideas. We use it for much more than that of course, but in terms of logic and analysis it is the idea that is of our concern. Because language consists of symbols – a sound or scratches on a surface – which contain meaning, then it is necessary to have a consistent meanings for each of those symbols. What you mean by a set of sounds must correspond with what it means to me when I hear those sounds. So we define those symbols to establish their meanings.

We go out of our way to catalog definitions into huge documents which everyone can reference. We take care to include definitions of new words, and to refer to older definitions as obsolete. Definitions are one of the most basic properties of language.

Yet when we come to analyzing argumentation, it is not uncommon to come to the realization that the words being used do not have the same meaning to both participants in the argument. If this is the case, then language is failing, and the meanings are being obscured.

Because definitions and the meanings of our concepts are crucially important to communicating our arguments accurately, we need to take some time with the concept of definitions before we get to arguments.

Purpose of Definitions
Definitions for a certain argument might need to be more precise than the word synonyms found in dictionaries. So we might need to create a word model of the concept that has the precision needed. According to Kelley:

a) A definition can clarify boundaries of a concept. (In what way is a cat not a dog? And also not a skunk?)

b) A definition can show relationships to other concepts (In what way is a cat like a dog but not like an alligator?)

c) A definition provides a summary statement about the referents of the concept. (If a concept is a container for all information about a certain class of things, a definition can summarize that information in a specific, condensed essence).

Types of Definitions
There are several types of definitions:

1. Stipulative; a new concept or symbol gets a definition by its creator.

2. Lexical; specifies a previously existing use of a term.

3. Precising; Used to remove ambiguity, to add precision to a term.

4. Theoretical; a comprehensive, perhaps scientific definition.

5. Persuasive; defined in a manner to “resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions”; as in politically emotive language.

In logic, precising and theoretical types will likely be most common.

Definition Method
A term has a class or set of like concepts to which it belongs; this is called extension. It is possible that this set is too large to define completely.

A term also has a class or set of like concepts which belong totally to it; this is called intension. Intensional definitions include those that are accepted by public usage in everyday language, and this is called Conventional Intension, which is the commonly used set for creating definitions.

A term can be classified by the use of “Genus and Differentiation (Species)” to locate the concept within a specific class for similarities and subclass for differences. In categorizing a term (or concept), it can generally be placed within a class of similar items, or a genus. Within that class items can be again categorized into subclasses, a process also referred to as “differentiation into species”. Hence the terminology, Genus and Differentiation.

Examples of Genus and Difference definitions:

Term: father
Genus: parent
Difference / species: man (note 1)

Term: florin
Genus: coin
Difference / species: Italian (note 2)

Term: table
Genus: dining
Difference / species: round

Rules for Definitions
There are rules for Defining things. Here are two sets of similar rules for forming definitions:

Rules for Definitions From Kelley (note 4):

1. A definition should include a genus and a differentia [species].

2. A definition should not be too broad or narrow.

3. A definition should state the essential attributes of the concept’s referents. [i.e. go to the fundamentals of the concept].

4. A definition should not be circular.

5. A definition should not use negative terms unnecessarily.

6. A definition should not use vague, obscure or metaphorical language.

From Copi & Cohen (note 5):

1. A definition should state the essential attributes of the species.

2. A definition must not be circular.

3. A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow.

4. Ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language must not be used in a definition.

5. A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative.
(Copi’s rule set presumes Genus and Difference methodology).

The first three rules in Kelley’s set form a construction list for making definitions. The last three are quality check items to make sure the definition is sound. This organization of the rules (Kelley’s) seems the best organized to me, so let’s go through it in slightly more detail using examples.

A definition should include a genus and a differentia [species]. Placing the concept within a frame of reference relative to similar concepts is useful to understanding its meaning. So finding a proper genus which reflects that is necessary. The additional separation into a subclass makes the concept distinct from the others in the genus. Here’s an example of some selections for “table”:

a) Term: table

Genus: furniture
Difference / species: flat surface

Too broad; desks also have flat surfaces.

b) Term: table

Genus: furniture
Difference / species: end of couch

Too narrow; there are other table types.

c) Term: table

Genus: furniture
Difference / species: not a desk

Oops, unnecessary negative, trying to set an exclusive boundary for one other furniture species or type.

d) Term: table

Genus: furniture
Difference: bench

Synonym: circular reference: table = bench = table.

e) Term: table

Genus: furniture
Difference / species: Horizontal flat surface set on legs.

This definition contains proper referents (items pertinent to the concept and pertinent to differentiating the concept from other species).

Exercise:
Using Genus and Difference, define “cat”, being certain to differentiate it from “dog” with certainty without saying “not a dog”, and to similarly also exclude skunks, raccoons, ferrets, rabbits, etc. Also do not use circular synonyms, such as “feline”. Obviously: no search engines, dictionaries, reference books, etc. Do your own work. If you have a good definition and care to share it, please feel free to do so.

As always, all questions and comments are welcome.

Notes:
1) Copi and Cohen, Logic, p115.
2) Kelley, The Art of reasoning, p 37.
4) Kelley, p 43.
5) Copi and Cohen, p 115 –117.