Apropos of prior threads in which nonbelief of a “guy in the sky” was expressed, I just ran across this post that links to “Preachers who are not Believers,” a study containing the following quote.
Relatedly, earlier this year I was reading a couple books: Being and Event (B&E) by contemporary philosopher Alain Badiou and Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (C&E) by contemporary Reformed theologian Michael Horton.
In short, B&E is centered around the idea “math is ontology.” Ontology is the study of existence or being. In B&E Badiou argues that any ontology that rejects the One is necessarily axiomatic, and then he develops what the ZFC axioms of set theory say about being, a unit of existence, and event, a unit of history. In B&E an “atheist” is one who thinks freely about religious matters, and that God does not exist is linked to the idea that no highest mathematical infinity exists.
In C&E Horton argues that covenants (promises and their fulfillments) found in the drama of history reveal God. Eschatology, the E word in the book’s title, is the study of the end. Horton views the historical and eschatological as one long drama spanning the beginning of time through the end. Also, I think it’s worth noting that Reformed theology tends toward the conservative side of mainline Christian theology.
Now, both books share a common theme: the rejection of Plato’s conception of God as the One Being. Badiou declares “the one is not (a being)” from the start. Horton argues that the Apostle Paul’s theology (the seed of Christian theological tradition) is historical/eschatological not ontological. In other words, for Horton (and the Apostle Paul) studying existence does not reveal God, rather studying the unfolding drama of history does. Does finding God in history instead of existence make Horton an atheist?
Atheists do not believe in any kind of higher power. To be fair, as a scientist, I’m really an agnostic, strongly leaning towards being an atheist. In the same way that I’m agnostic about there being a small china teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. I can’t possibly know 100% for sure that it’s not there, but evidence is strong that it is not.
People claiming that agnostics or deists are “atheists” are just reactionary christians (usually). They are not using the word as it is defined, but rather attempting to use it as a slur against those who’s beliefs are not strictly in line with their own.
All atheists posit what’s called a universal negative. A universal negative requires absolute knowledge (omniscience) whereas a universal positive may not require that.
For instance, let’s say I am in a building with 4 rooms, and I have only been in 1 room. In order to say that every room is empty, I would have to have knowledge of all 4 rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know.
However, to state the opposite, that the building is not empty, I would at the very least only need to know about one room.
So, in essence, any time an atheist claims that there is absolutely no God, they are claiming absolute and full knowledge of the universe (omniscience). If they are not claiming absolute knowledge, than they are going off of faith, but in fact, since they could never EVER know for sure that universal negative, then they are requiring much more faith than a person who claims there is a God (because finding out if there is a God may not require absolute knowledge).
This is why I don’t align myself with athiests anymore, generally they’re more annoying than their Christian counterparts as well.
I’ve already given up on the “little boxes”–they’re not my boxes! I’m trying to understand what other people mean because what I hear self proclaimed atheists saying seems to complement much of what I’ve encountered in my study of Christian theology.
The above quote is a prime example where New Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett expresses that “God is not a being” is the stance of an atheist. Yet, that is precisely a position that Christian theologian Michael Horton argues for in his book.
At such time that theologians, in order to establish definitively the existence of God, have moved the concept of God to one synonymous with the atheist position, at that point, will this discussion cease to have meaning?
It doesn’t seem to me that Horton tries to “establish definitively the existence of God.” He merely argues that covenants in the drama of history reveal God. That is to say God only “exists” in the sense that meaning in history “exists”–however one might define that if at all.
Horton doesn’t adjust his concept of God to being synonymous with “the atheist position.” Rather, he appeals to the Apostle Paul’s eschatologically oriented theology while resisting the influences of Plato’s ontology that have undeniably leaked into Christian thought.
I don’t know that the discussion will cease to have meaning, but it may lose the small amount of intrigue that remains.
Yes and no. I’m an idealistic nihilist. I do what I think is right, with the knowledge that it’s all for naught. Just want to enjoy my time here without ruffling too many feathers.
Perhaps, then, you should look past the word atheist and look into the meat of what others are saying. It seems to have become a blanket term for a lot of different beliefs… so one can’t go on that word alone anymore.
You’re just the right person to hold a mirror up to those who use that word. Perhaps you should go on an atheist crusade?
I was not clear. I wasn’t suggesting that either of the two individuals you are discussing did hypothesize a God synonymous with the atheist position. I was simply jumping forward as that seems the direction such thought is heading.
I don’t understand at all how the “covenants in the drama of history”, a history entirely populated by humans and their interactions with each other and their natural world could have anything to do with God, however defined, without that God being somehow previously assumed to exist.
I find the statement “no being at all is God” to be very poetic, but not at all compelling.
While writing this awkward clause I was having a senior moment although I am technically several months shy of seniority. I fished for a word and just couldn’t come up with it.
“without that God being presupposed to exist.” is what I meant.
Of course. I don’t write something off simply because someone who calls themself an atheist said it. (As far as I know, Badiou would call himself and atheist, yet I’m quite intrigued by B&E.) I guess I’ve heard too many times about Dennett referring to certain Christians as atheists who won’t admit it. I don’t really understand why the word is that important to Dennett.
I can’t say I necessarily agree with everything in C&E, and I’m certainly not going to detail the lengthy argument here. And, I haven’t actually finished reading the book. I think what it comes down to is that studying history requires us to assume that meaning is to be found, that there is a drama unfolding.
While Horton doesn’t seem to take this line of thought, I think Badiou’s conception of events, the units of history, illuminates the issue. According to Badiou events are paradoxical. This is because prior to an event is simply chance. An event doesn’t become an event until after it already occurred when someone recognizes it and interprets its meaning. A pile of facts does not constitute history. History is only that which is named and preserves the fidelity of a preexisting scheme that we already recognize as meaningful history.
So, yes, I think we presume that meaning “exists” outside of us whenever we acknowledge history as something worth studying, but I haven’t decided for myself what I think that “exists” means. And I don’t know that it really matters. I don’t think it means anything like a physicist means by the statement “atoms exist.”
I’m sorry, you lost me after “All atheists”. Though many atheists surely think alike, all atheists don’t anything.
For those that make this claim, they are definitely unable to back it up. But most don’t make this claim. For me, the most basic definition of atheist is “doesn’t believe” in God (or gods). The more hardcore atheists “believe” there is no God. But this is no different an act of faith than that of most believers. Neither can prove their argument.
But the statement “God is not a being” seems to include the assumption that the God in question is something else. Wouldn’t most atheists position be that God isn’t anything? Other than a figment of billions of peoples’ imagination…
How many churchgoers are just “going through the motions” but aren’t necessarily believers? Certainly a lot more in places where it’s unpopular (or illegal) to not believe in the local beliefs. Or in different times. How many of the American Founding Fathers, for example, were perhaps atheists, when to admit to such a thing could get you burned alive, killed more “humanely”, or perhaps just unemployed and ostracized?
So I think there is a percentage of members of any given church or religion that are just there for appearances, or that aren’t “true” believers in the faith to which they are members.
Well, I think it depends on what you mean by “something” or “anything.” Does the drama of history contain a “something” that Horton can reasonably correspond with a concept of God? Can we have history without presuming that it has meaning?
Whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof, not the one saying “I don’t believe, but I might be persuaded if you can show me concrete evidence of your claim.”
Example: One person claims there’s a rattlesnake under a rock. Person 2 says they don’t believe it, and asks for clear evidence. Person one lifts the rock, and therefore proves his claim with absolute certainty.
Not possible with something intangible and not demonstrable. One can have a belief-or set of beliefs-but to claim, with certainty, that those held “beliefs” are fact, without providing indisputable evidence is not logical or accurate. It’s simply called “faith”, not fact.
Same goes for the person who makes the opposite claim, that god or something else does not exist. An atheist usually does not make that claim; they simply do not believe the claims of the believer, because there is no hard evidence to backup the claim.
