Beliefs and Labels

The starry sky inspires awe—regardless of our beliefs and the labels that we build around them.

To answer the question, “What do you believe?” in a meaningful way, we need to first define some terms. This post includes some definitions; both formal and informal. I will also sprinkle in my own commentary regarding the terminology of belief. 

What follows is part primer on terminology and part resource guide. After covering terminology, I’ll provide a cursory overview of the more popular philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity.

Some people fixate on the labels. I am of the view that the positions and beliefs behind the labels—as explained by those who hold and use them—are more relevant to understanding another person’s beliefs than nominal labels.

There is a lot of ground to cover when it comes to beliefs and the labels that we ascribe to them. This is especially true when dealing with ideas that are not codified neatly by governing bodies of authority like you might have with for example, the Roman Catholic Church or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

Defining Terms.

There are dozens and dozens of terms to describe various degrees of human belief or disbelief in religious deities. Some of these terms can be qualified with additional adjectives. As such, it would be naive to assume that you can describe all of the nuanced implications of a person’s belief system with a single-word label that they might employ for expediency.

In this post, we’ll look at the definition of some foundational terms from the Oxford Dictionary. As we do, I will sprinkle in my own commentary and suggest resources that one can use for further study.

Theism.

This is the general term for the view that a God or Gods exist, and that religions were revealed in some form to human beings. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc. are all theists.

Oxford Dictionary: US English

Theism comes in several varieties, such as monotheism, pantheism, etc. In some systems of classification, deism (defined below) is considered a particular subset of theism.

Classical theism is what most people actually mean when they simply use the word “theism”. In classical theism, the deity is a personal deity. That is, one who interacts with the Creation.

I myself use the term theism as a colloquial abbreviation for the more precise term classical theism. As such, whenever I refer to non-theism, I tend to group deism and atheism together as markedly and meaningfully different from classical theism.

Atheism.

This is probably one of the most misunderstood of all belief labels as many positions with important distinctions can fall under this umbrella term.

Oxford Dictionary: US English

Often times, atheism is incorrectly simplified to imply an absolute conviction that no God could possibly exist. Atheists have repeatedly clarified that the general term ‘atheism’ (without a qualifier) is simply the rejection of the proposition, “There is a god”.

Professing an absolute conviction in the rejection of any and all deities is known as strong atheism. Strong atheism carries with it an initial burden of proof, just as theism does. Weak or ‘implicit’ atheism does not carry an initial burden of proof.

Implicit atheism is simply a rejection of the proposition proffered by theists that there is a God. The term ‘atheism’ when used generally is by default, synonymous with implicit atheism.²

One can be an implicit atheist in the general sense, and yet profess a strong atheist position selectively. This is done when referring to very specific God-claims.

For example, an atheist (by default, an implicit atheist) could take a strong atheist position against a specific conception of god—such as the God of the Old Testament. The otherwise implicit atheist would be asserting a strong belief that the Biblical God at least, definitely does not exist. This does not mean that they have closed the door to all other conceptions of a god—just that they still do not believe that there exists sufficient evidence for a god or gods, generally.

Anti-Theism.

For non-theists of any kind who view religion as dangerous and harmful to society, the term anti-theist applies. Not all atheists are anti-theists. By way of example, the late Christopher Hitchens was a popular anti-theist.

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior.

Wikipedia entry on ‘Antitheism’

To be clear, an anti-theist is not one who is bigoted against theists; the term only refers to being against the ideology of theism.

New Atheism.

The term New Atheism has become popular in the early twenty-first century. New Atheists are those who, unlike the atheists before them, are no longer content to quietly reject religion. They are outspoken proponents of atheism as a morally superior position vis-a-vis the questions of God and religion.

The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views. Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The New Atheists

Whereas New Atheism is concerned with being vocal about the superiority of atheism over (classical) theism, Anti-theism is concerned with raising awareness about the dangers of (classical) theism. In practice, there is much overlap in the New Atheism and Anti-theism movements.

• Wikipedia: Negative and Positive Atheism
• Article: Atheism Questions: Negative and Positive Atheism

Regarding the burden of proof and the rejection of a proposition, this video contains a short Q&A with prolific atheist speaker Matt Dillahunty.

• Video: The Atheist Experience: Excerpt from Episode 682

A personal and intellectual exploration of a transition from Christianity to Atheism by Theramin Trees.

• Video: (Part 1) Transition to Atheism
• Video: (Part 2) Atheism as Congruence

An Ahmadiyya Muslim perspective on Atheism as the “Greatest Challenge of Our Time” — a speech given by the articulate and well-intentioned Harris Zafar on 28th December 2013 in the USA. This speech, considering it is from a theistic perspective, is refreshingly reasonable. It replaces demonization with a sincere appeal to co-religionists to understand that there are rational reasons why people become atheists. My only quibble is at the end, where the claim is made that atheism also requires “faith”.

• Video: Atheism - The Greatest Challenge of our Time  

Theists sometimes make the mistake of classifying atheism as its own religion or even going so far as to claim that atheism requires faith in the way that Islam or Christianity does. Author Michael Sherlock breaks it down in a short essay, as to why that characterization is incorrect.

• Article: Is New Atheism a Religious or Faith-based Movement?

Agnosticism.

In everyday use, to be an agnostic is to convey the sentiment, “I don’t have an opinion either way” or “I don’t know that we can really know”. This would be in response to the question, “Does God exist?”

Oxford Dictionary: US English

In Einstein’s rejection of both theism and atheism, he has been quoted as allowing others to use the label agnostic for his beliefs.⁴ Many would argue that Einstein’s views align more closely with deism. Indeed, there is some interplay between aspects of both agnosticism and deism. In my understanding, this is mostly due to how they both reject the knowledge claims⁵ of theism and positive atheism.

Deism.

This is where one can believe in a Higher Being while still rejecting claimants to prophethood and scriptures professing to be divine. God can be a higher force of intelligence—the creator of the universe—without revealing anything to humanity except nature itself.

Oxford Dictionary: US English

It is through a deistic conception of God that one can most clearly assert a sense of spirituality—the belief in a creative force greater than each of us—whilst still rejecting traditional “revealed” religions.

Middle Ground?.

A deist can accept most philosophical arguments put forth for the existence of God, and still reject the world’s religious movements and their purported holy scriptures.

It may be that variations on the cosmological and teleological arguments (introduced below) give the deist their grounding for a belief in the existence of intelligent and creative forces behind our universe. Of course, you would have to ask each deist why they believe in a deity (or deities). By definition, there is no deist scripture.

For the deist, it is not about a personal God. It is not about religion.

Rather, the deist claims to use inductive reasoning and argues that although we can infer God⁶ in the creation of the universe and in our own existence, there is no good evidence of a Being who interacts with the human race, contravenes his own laws of nature, or who intervenes against evil and suffering.

For this reason, deists will often have common cause with atheists, new atheists, and anti-theists because the human experience postulating an indifferent God is not much different than the human experience with a God who does not exist.

Consequently, classical theism stands alone to defend the value of organized religion and religion’s formal truth claims.

Agnostic Deism.

This term appears to be an informal and relatively recent mashup of agnosticism and deism. Given the plethora of nouns and adjectives describing belief, it is not surprising that the term agnostic deist has been adopted by people, independent of one another.

For agnostic deists, the concept of God is the deist conception. This concept is however, tempered with agnosticism. It is deism without the position of certainty.

Agnostic deists make an inference that a God exists who does not intervene in the Universe, but they also recognize that the existence of such a deity is not truly knowable or provable. Hence, the agnostic qualifier as a prefix. Consider it a belief in the existence of a God of the deistic variety, softened with a strong admission that we human beings cannot actually know if this belief is sound.

In colloquial usage, agnostic deism has also been used to convey the sentiment that a deistic model of God is the most likely explanation for our universe. The one who holds this position is however, not wedded to that belief in the way that a gnostic deist would be. Here, the word ‘agnostic’ is being used as an adjective to soften the conviction with which one proposes deism. It’s as if to say, “I think deism is the likely truth about the nature of a god or gods, of our universe, and of how life came to be.”

Formal Arguments for a God.

There are numerous classical arguments for the existence of God. Most of these arguments are still used today, albeit with modern refinements and upgrades applied.

A synopsis of some of the classical arguments for the existence of a God:

• The Teleological Argument: This is the intelligent design argument, also known as the argument from design. It suggests that there is evidence of deliberate design in the universe and in nature, and that therefore, evidence of an Intelligent Creator.
• The Ontological Argument: This argument states that God is a being of which no greater being can be conceived in the mind, and that it is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the mind. Therefore, God must exist.
• The Cosmological Argument: This is the argument from universal causation. Many variations exist. It suggests that since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and that since the universe began to exist,⁷ the creation of the universe must have been caused. Ergo, God is that cause. 

This is not a comprehensive list by any means. It is only meant to hint at the richness of the philosophical thought and debate on the topic. For an index to the myriad arguments in philosophy for the existence of a God, this wikipedia entry is a good starting point, as is this more accessible overview.

One of the most popular philosophical arguments for the existence of God in modern times is the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). It is a variation on the original cosmological argument. Of course, to all of these formal arguments, counter arguments have also been proposed.

For example, an explanation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and objections to it are relayed in this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You can also watch this short clip on how atheists and theists can’t even agree on the validity of the starting premises of the underlying syllogism. These disagreements are more formally showcased in excerpts from a debate held between William Lane Craig (Professor of Philosophy) and Sean Carroll (Theoretical Physicist).

1. My microblog post on the key evidence proposed by this video, can be read here. In summary, I share an excerpt of a TheraminTrees video that discusses commitment cycles.
2. Also known as “weak atheism”, “negative atheism” and “soft atheism”
3. American definition of agnostic in Oxford Dictionaries (US English)
4. See this news article about Einstein’s letters, clarifying that he did not believe in a personal God nor did he wish to expend the energy of a ‘crusading atheist’.
5. You may find the short primer The Basics of Philosophy a useful overview of epistemology, explaining concepts such as ‘knowledge claims’.
6. The deist’s concept of the Creator of the Universe need not remotely resemble the theist’s conception. Therefore, even the appellation of “God” to this entity or forces is often one of conversational convenience for the deist.
7. Here, the “began to exist” is referring to  Big Bang cosmology, as popularly understood.