Definitions (Not a Scictionary)

Definitions: Democracy and Language

Perhaps a certain number of disagreements between members could be avoided if we simply enforced specific definitions. Of course, if moderators are to enforce definitions, should they also be the ones to establish those definitions?

I'm not certain we should aim toward writing a Scictionary, but since the proposition is on the table—

"James, you need to revise what the word 'atheist' means, because I'm not going to go round the houses and burn the straw man you are so busy stuffing. If you can't make your point using the accepted definitions of words, give up."

(#2758219/26)​

—we ought, mayhaps, to explore the possibility.

So, who would like a crack at establishing an official definition of the word "atheist" for the purposes of discussion at Sciforums?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are going to enforce thought??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The road always starts this way you know, paved with good intentions and all that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I once read that the word atheist was at one point used by the Romans to describe Christians, because of their belief that no other gods should be worshipped besides their own. I therefore submit that the official Scigogulan definition of atheist should be "A believer in Christian theology".

They already are - why not go whole hog ?

 

Only if the membership deems that we should.

 

Dictionary(-like) definitions make discussion impossible.

If things would/could be clearly defined, there would be nothing to talk about.

 

what's wrong with using the dictionaries that are already available?

 

I agree.

 

This and That

In theory, nothing.

In practice, I suppose people are the problem; they don't necessarily attend dictionary definitions.

In the specific example from the topic post, well, in truth I'm not certain what definition of "atheist" needs to be revised, and how. I've looked through the discussion it comes from; I think it's a factional fight among atheists.

• • •​

I don't disagree.

Functionally, however, people often fight about definitions that differ only by a hairsbreadth.

Definitions of terms describing identity postures are especially difficult, as the proposition documented in the topic post reminds: "... you need to revise what the word 'atheist' means .... If you can't make your point using the accepted definitions of words, give up."

Technically, that's a fine argument, but what does it actually mean? What is wrong with James' definition? And, perhaps more importantly, what should the definition be?

In some cases, then, I would suggest that the argument over definitions is simply a distraction; perhaps that is the case with the word atheist. But every time I come across an argument over definitions? Look, this isn't something specific like defining a newton, or the difference between acceleration and velocity. Nor is this some absurd question of conditions such as if and then. It is not a question of red or magenta or pink. Rather, it is a not-so-clever attempt to yank the rug out from under people.

 

I don't see how we can have a discussion if the semantics of words varies from individual to individual.
I personally, if someone draws my attention that I understand something else by a word, just as it is defined by a dictionary, I quit my meaning, and I will adopt as defined in the dictionary.
In my opinion, if someone is not satisfied with the definition given by the dictionary, then he/she should open a thread in Linguistics.

 

Then, like Stalin, we should do away with people, and say "No people, no problems!"

What do you mean?
That words can hurt, even kill?

 

That is precisely how we can have a discussion at all.
Misunderstanding is the essence of communication.

 

Something, something, Burt Ward

Well, see, that's the thing. We have our individual definitions, and in most of our lives we also have collective definitions.

Is Hillary Clinton really a "liberal"? What does that make flaming left wingers, then, like Mark Steel, Charlie Chaplin, or myself? Well, she's definitely "liberal" compared to, say, Rep. Paul Ryan, or my colleague Madanthonywayne. But how do we even know which definition of "liberal" we're applying? Is "classic liberalism" a static definition, or can we identify an intellectual heritage connecting it to modern, social-statist liberalism that only accepts laissez faire once the institutions have erected such boundaries that the public interest has no need to keep a hand in?

Compared to twentieth century liberalism—that allegedly fearsome mix of godlessness, cowardice, and communism°—of Reaganesque mythopoeia, Hillary Clinton is either a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican.

Indeed, one can usually gamble safely that another denouncing Hillary Clinton as a liberal is, in fact, a conservative. So when we hear that complaint, we already have some markers for the context by which we define "liberal". We might establish that definition sarcastically—Liberal means anything not on the GOP platform that isn't more conservative than the platform. Or we might do so responsibly, and leave the term generally amorphous according to the fewest possible boundaries, and thus allow the complaint to define its own terminology. Or we might do so nitpickingly, as I'm kind of making a point of doing for the sake of example.

Or we could, such as the example of the topic post demands, establish some sort of official working definition compared to which we must proactively enumerate our disagreements or deviations.

Indeed, I am actually encouraged that the proposition is met with such skepticism. Such skepticism requires, at some point, a certain degree of literacy. That is, in order to not drag ourselves down into nitpicking—unless, of course, that is the point—we have various tools to help us identify the boundaries of any given context. Who is complaining? What are they complaining about? To what does the complaint compare? We can easily start fixing the contextual coordinates of a functionally amorphous term.

Who is a Christian? By what terminology do we define it? John 3:16? Curtis Lee Laws? John Calvin? The pastor of my childhood church? The Pope?

Who is a Muslim? Again, by what terminology do we define it? Such questions have tremendous implications in the context of moral considerations of action. What if I told you there is no such thing as a Muslim suicide bomber? I mean, sure, if I tried, I could create some narrow definition that excludes suicide bombers implicitly. I have no idea how many other Muslims I would disqualify by such a standard, but that's part of my point. If I tell you there is no such thing as a Muslim suicide bomber, once you stop laughing, how are you going to answer that? Well, by laughing some more, sure. But in theory, the question is probably going to center around the criteria of defining a Muslim. In that sense, the criteria identifying a suicide bomber are pretty clear, even to the point that it doesn't matter if the bomb is strapped to one's chest or a 747 piloted into a building. You know, it's become a catch-all. And yes, we intuitively recognize that we're not including Japanese kamikaze pilots from World War II. Oh, right ... or white, American tax protesters flying light aircraft into government buildings.

But, there comes a point where we can all agree on colloquial definitions. Or maybe not, since that seems to be something people spend a lot of time fighting about.

Who is an atheist? Does the label rightly include the theologically apathetic? Those who don't think a damn thing about God one way or another? Or is one obliged to declare the identity in order to be an atheist? Is the label significant of anything other than a rejection of other people's beliefs?

The current atheistic movement is entirely an anti-identification. And that term splits both ways this time. First, it is an identification not of anything internal, but against something external. Also, it seems a product of rising "anti"-myth in the late twentieth century. Most people are aware of the idea of an "anti-hero". In my youth, these were the Brian Bosworths and Randy "Macho Man" Savages of the world. It was, in short, the romance of living life as a complete asshole, and being respected for being a complete asshole. Atheism is antiheroic in its own aspect. Not only does it refuse to proactively identify itself in favor of identifying against other labels, it also demands a certain weight and benefit while desperately trying to elude its obligations. That is, we frequently make arguments that religion causes problems because people who are religious commit atrocities. Yet atheists also refuse any connection between the "atheism" of communism and the atrocious demands of Stalinism. Atheism can only be responsible for good things in the world. It can't be held responsible for anything bad that happens.

I know, it's a curiousity unto itself in that sense. But yeah, we all recognize that atheism involves something about a person and either the idea that there is no supernatural dimension or the lack of any idea that there is or might be a supernatural dimension.

And for a lot of identifying atheists, how we settle that seemingly small conflict is, in fact, significant, as it represents the difference between their conduct being justifiable as a response to victimization, or contemptible for just being priggishly belligerent. It's the difference between being a hero, or being an asshole.

That what's at stake. In other words: Nothing to see here, move along, and don't look at the man behind the curtain. There is no man behind the curtain. There is no curtain. No, really. That's certainly not a curtain you're looking at. And if you pull it open that certainly would not be a man inside. And he certainly wouldn't be doing anything important. And if it was important, it certainly wouldn't have anything to do with you. And if it had to do with you, you're just being paranoid. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Or something like that.

No, really, I don't know. I'm just rambling because I'm feeling satisfied and all catbird seatish.

Maybe I'm just high.
____________________

Notes:

° godlessness, cowardice, and communism — Yes, that phrasing is, in fact, redundant, insofar as the American patriot's view of communism during the Cold War presupposed godlessness and cowardice on the part of the communist.

 

Yes, you're right.
I personally had the biggest problem with the word "socialism". Very few understand, as defined in Wikipedia.

We humans, we have ideas.
We try to communicate these ideas with other people.
We communicate through language.
From a technical standpoint, in my opinion, this method of communication is very primitive. But we don't have anything better.
The first error is introduced when we put our ideas in the form by words and sentences. The second error is introduced when the who listens restore the ideas from the words and sentences.
I wonder my thoughts that I wanted to communicate what form it takes in your mind?
How nice it would be if I could communicate thoughts without language! Unfortunately this is not possible and we are bound by the language.
But we can improve this communication system. This makes the definitions given by the dictionary. Also, if there are nuances that are not included in the dictionary we can bring new words to match these nuances.

 

Life would be monitions if we couldn't play enough with definitions to reveal new patterns of thought. Words mean what they mean in the minds of those wise enough to understand definitions. Why would you destroy the strength of an intelligent minds "value over words" only to conform to those who might not possibly grasp the mental prowess (or lack thereof) behind "being away from God"?

 

The problem there is not hypocrisy on the parts of atheists, but laziness or stupidity on the part of whoever is making the former argument. The supposition that "religion causes problems because people who are religious commit atrocities" is no argument at all - that's just a naked stereotype. It's like "arguing" that black people are a problem because people who are black commit crimes.

To make an actual argument, one would have to assert some means by which religion causes people to commit atrocities that they otherwise would not. This is not difficult: it's a basic tent of human science that the entire social evolutionary advantage of religion (i.e., the whole reason that it has proliferated and so is an issue to begin with) is exactly that it enables group cohesion and organization at a scale sufficient to engage in genocide, assimilation of smaller groups, etc. The atrocities are simply one side of the coin of how religion figures into statehood (increased in-group cohesion and deferrence to authority being the other). Atheism does not provide such a basis for statecraft, so it's not similarly problematic, even if declaredly-atheist states commit nasty acts against churches. It isn't atheism that empowered Stalin - it was ethnic nationalism and revolutionary class warfare ideology. And it's difficult to imagine where Stalin would have had less blood on his hands had the church been on the other side of that - quite probably, more blood would be on his hands, just from different targets (and probably with greater moral sanction, both internally and internationally).

Or, consider the recent child-abuse scandals emanating from the Catholic church of late - there may well be just as many atheist pedophiles as Catholic priest ones (no idea, really), but there is no international institution of atheists that will work to systematically cover up such abuses, knowingly give abusers privileged access to unsuspecting potential victims, pay off those who'd alert the community, etc. That tendency to organization, and so power, is where the danger lies. I don't know of anyone who thinks that religion is a problem because of the personal epistemological convictions of whatever individuals, as such. Maybe they consider certain of them to be deluded or silly or whatever, but the actual "problem" stuff is all systemic issues stemming from organized, hierarchical structures that religion is indispensible to, and ultimately inseparable from.

So, let's please not posit a facile equivalence between atheism and religion on the basis of some dumb arguments supposedly advanced by some atheists here. Except for the facile equivalence that there are people on both sides that are susceptible to advancing poor arguments, of course.

 

Was this not already attempted, and the result posted here as a sticky in the Religion forum?: HERE

If this is inadequate a definition then perhaps the sticky should be changed.
And if it is simply that people are not adhering to the "definition" provided in the sticky then does this not already demonstrate the futility of such an exercise, however well intentioned?

 

The Romans (or maybe the Greeks), I understand, also used the term as derogatory not with respect one's belief, but with respect their actions.
Someone might be called an atheist despite believing in the pantheon of Gods merely by shunning them, refusing to worship or respect them... yet still believing in them.
So it was not always a question of belief but of practice.... if you acted as though the Gods did not exist then you were an atheist, irrespective of why you were acting that way (e.g. because of belief in non-existence, apathy, disrespect etc).

 

It's position on atheism is wholly wrong.

 

"Wholly wrong"?
Are you suggesting that there is no validity to the definition given in that thread?
And are you further suggesting that you have the only definition that is to be accepted?

My guess would be that there are many competing ideas as to what constitutes an atheist... your's being just one.

Some like the broadest "definition" - the "not having a belief in God's existence", while some like the "having a belief in God's non-existence" variety.
Some like to see atheism as a position held as a reaction to theism, while others see atheism as applicable to babies, chairs, trees etc.
Some see atheism as merely a practical position rather than one of belief/non-belief.

Whether any of these should be considered official or not will undoubtedly annoy those who don't hold to that definition.
But feel free to offer an alternative.


But your response does highlight the rather pointless exercise of trying to arrive at an "acceptable" definition - as that sticky has been there for quite a while, and yet few seem to have known about it, and fewer (if any) have commented on it, let alone that it is "wholly wrong" on the issue.