“ian mcewan and atheist ethnography: testing the ethnographic value of fiction in defining modern...

Testing the Ethnographic Value of Fiction in Defining Modern Atheism

IAN MCEWAN AND ATHEIST

ETHNOGRAPHY:

Ethan Gjerset QuillenThe University of Edinburgh

What is Atheist Fiction?

(A Few Issues)

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/796464-fiction-that-contains-atheist-humanist-characters

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/szlu0/does_atheist_literature_exist/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_authors

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/796464-fiction-that-contains-atheist-humanist-characters

When people define themselves as ‘Atheist’ what shape does that take?

What does ‘Living an Atheist Life Look Like?’

How do these identity constructions shape our scholarly conceptions of Atheism?

How do we go about observing Atheist identity construction?

What might an ETHNOGRAPHY of Atheism look like?

‘Ethnographies of Atheism’

Matthew Engelke, “In spite of Christianity: Humanism and its others in contemporary Britain” (Non-Religion and Secularity Research Network Annual Lecture: London School of Economics, 28 November 2012),

• Lorna Mumford, “Atheism and Anthropology: Researching Atheism and Self-Searching Belief and Experience Workshop” (NSRN Events Report of the Atheism and Anthropology Workshop: 21 September 2011

• Rebecca Catto and Janet Eccles, “(Dis)Believing and Belonging: Investigating the Narrative of Young British Atheists” (Temenos, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2013), 38-63.

• Katie Aston, “Finding Space for Nonreligion? Further Possibilities for Spatial Analysis” (response to Christopher Cotter’s interview with Kim Knott for the Religious Studies Project, accessible via: http://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/2012/09/26/finding-space-for-nonreligion-further-possibilities-for-spatial-analysis-by-katie-aston/).

http://www.religiousstudiesproject.com/2012/09/26/finding-space-for-nonreligion-further-possibilities-for-spatial-analysis-by-katie-aston/



TWO PROBLEMS

TWO PROBLEMS

What is Atheism?

TWO PROBLEMS

What is Atheism?

How do we conduct an ‘Anthropology of Atheism?’

TWO PROBLEMS

What is Atheism?

How do we conduct an ‘Anthropology of Atheism?’[Concept]

[Text]

ATHEISM

Aveling, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, 1907. “Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism.” Baggini, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, 2003, 3.“Atheism is in fact extremely simple to define: it is the belief that there is no God or gods.” Bainbridge, Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 2005, 7.“Someone on whom no one else is dependent, someone who lacks strong social bonds of a kind to incur such obligations, is more free to espouse Atheism.” Barb, European Journal of American Studies, 2011, 12.“Demographically insignificant, atheists have been for a long time a convenient ‘other’—if not the only one of course—against which Americans could heighten and reinforce their sense of belonging and their collective identity, thus revealing the central role played by religion as a strong ‘symbolic code’ and ‘moral frontier’ in American society.” Barrett, Religion, 2010, 3.“Commonly CSR theorists have advanced the idea that atheism is relatively unnatural and theism is relatively natural from a cognitive perspective.” Bremmer, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, 2009, 11.“If we find atheism as all, it is usually a ‘soft’ atheism or the imputation of atheism to others as a means to discredit them.” Buckley, At the Origins of Modern Atheism, 1990, 338.“…the central meaning of atheism is to be found, not in atheism, but in the theism of which it is the denial. The name, the definition, and the referent for atheism are set by the going theism. The meaning of atheism, then, is always dialectical, that is, it emerges from its contradiction.” Bullivant, NSRN Glossary, 2011, 1.“I believe a far better and usable definition of ‘atheism’—one already in scholarly use—can be located in the category not of ‘commitment,’ but of ‘belief.’ What I want to do in this short paper, then, is simply to outline what I believe to be a fairly uncontroversial definition of atheism already in scholarly use: ‘a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.’” Bullivant, The Salvation of Atheists and Catholic Dogmatic Theology, 2012, 16. “For the purposes of this study, then, the word ‘atheist’ will signify the following: a person who is without a belief in God (or gods).”

Cliteur, Journal of Religion and Society, 2009, 9-12.“The atheist’s position may be summarized as follows: atheism is a negative doctrine. The atheist is not convinced by the proofs of theism … we should take atheism as the default position. The theist has to prove his case … an Atheist, so it may be safely contended, is primarily concerned with one specific religious tradition. He is concerned with the idea of a personal, almighty, omniscient, and perfectly benevolent god … atheism’ is nothing more than the denial of the claims of theism.” Cliteur, Philosophy Now, 2010, 6.“A-theism: ‘Narrow’ atheism, involving only the rejection of monotheism. Atheism: ‘broad’ rejection of the possible existence of any and all divine (supernaturally powerful) beings.” Cohen, Theism or Atheism: The Great Alternative, 1921, 140.“As we shall see, Atheism, from the point of view both of history and etymology, stands for the negation of theism, and its final justification must be found in the untenability of the theistic position.” Converse, Atheism as a Positive Social Force, 2003, 149.“…the definition of atheism would be one who denies the existence of the supernatural in all forms whether this belief is in the form of religion or absolute truth of any form; one who believes that first causes can, and will someday, be known.” Cragun and Hammer, Humanity and Society, 2011, 170.“Given the discussion of terminology above, there is some reason to think that being religious is a non-normative state; all children are born non-religious and have to be taught to be religious. Thus, in a sense, being religious is deviant.” Drachmann, Atheism in Pagan Antiquity, 1922, 1-2.“Hence I came to define atheism in Pagan antiquity as the point of view which denies the existence of the ancient gods. … In the sense in which the word is used here we are nowadays all of us atheists. We do not believe that the gods whom the Greeks and the Romans worshipped and believed in exist or have ever existed; we hold them to be productions of the human imagination to which nothing real corresponds.” Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann, American Sociological Review, 2006, 228.“We found that the figure of the atheist is invoked rhetorically to discuss the links—or tensions—among religion, morality, civic responsibility, and patriotism. In particular, the association of the atheist with a kind of unaccountable elitism has surfaced in recent public debates.” Edwards, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume One, 1967, 175.“On our definition, an ‘atheist’ is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that ‘God exists’ expresses a false position.”

Eller, Natural Atheism, 2004, 12.“…born-again Atheism must be different from natural Atheism because of the experiences that have transpired in the life of the recovered Atheist. Above all, the recovered Atheist is a former Theist, so he or she has lived that life, believed those beliefs, been part of that community and that world.” Eller, Atheism and Secularity, 2010, 1-4.“At its core, Atheism is a profoundly simple idea: derived from the Greek a- for ‘no/without’ and theos for ‘god,’ it merely designates a position (not a ‘belief’; see below) that includes or asserts no god(s). … Humans are natural atheists—not in the sense of attacking god(s) but in the sense of lacking god(s).” Fabro, God in Exile: Modern Atheism, 1968, 7.“…it implies the negation of God, not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end and, as it were, as a repercussion. Modern atheism is fighting for man and asserts that God must be eliminated in order to save man, that eternity must be set aside in the best interests of a full life in the temporal dimension. This is the most radical atheism; it sees in the denial of God the foundational condition of the salvation of man (Marxist, existentialist, sociological, historical, and kindred brands of atheism).” Ferguson, Faith and Its Critics, 2009, 15.“Atheism is a term of contested meanings. As the Greek alpha privative suggests, ‘a-theism’ is essentially the negation of a position. It is not surprising, therefore, that it signifies the rejection of quite different views across space and time. A passing acquaintance with the competing philosophies of the ancient world reveals that atheism is not a new phenomenon that has emerged with the rise of modern science or the European Enlightenment.” Flew, The Presumption of Atheism, 1976, 13-14.“What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. … In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.” Flint, Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877, 1877, 4.“Atheism is the rejection of belief in God. It teaches either that there is no God, or that it is impossible for man to know that there is a God, or that there is no sufficient reason for believing that there is a God. In other words, it either absolutely denies that there is a Divine Being, or it denies that the human mind is capable of discovering whether or not there is a Divine Being, or it simply maintains that no valid proof of the existence of a Divine Being has been produced.”

Geertz and Markusson, Religion, 2010, 156.“Ultimately, the implication of the naturalness hypothesis is one of probability: religiosity is likely but not necessary (and certainly not an existential necessity as the mechanisms involved were not selected by nature for religiosity but for mundane navigation) and, as we will come to in a moment, atheism is less likely but certainly possible, given the right environmental and cultural niche.”

Gordon, Literary Atheism, 2002, 6.“In this study I regularly call the sophisticated modern atheist a literary atheist because contending with an idea inside oneself seems to me a characteristic activity of the literary imagination. This is where the poet lives and moves and has his being.” Hartley, Trinity Journal, 2006, 294.“The ideal solution in affirming God's "existence" is to avoid an act-potency implication and to embrace a Christian in distinction to a Jewish or Islamic theism. This article distinguishes then between atheism (positive), a-theism (negative), agnostic atheism (positive/ negative), and practical atheism (ethically like positive/negative atheism).”

Herrick, Against the Faith: Some Deists, Sceptics, and Atheists, 1985, 17.“‘Atheist’ is quite clear in its meaning of ‘somebody without a belief in God’. It is more complex in its usage since it has often been used to blacken anyone with the slightest doubt about the teachings of religion.” Hiorth, Introduction to Atheism, 1995, 34-35.“In addition to the five main concepts of atheism [Theoretical, Non-Theism, General, Positive, Practical], the term ‘atheism’ may also be used in a more general way, referring to any of the five main concepts or to some other, not necessarily specified, concept. The term ‘atheist’ is often used in such an unspecified way, and this may be called indefinite or unspecified atheism.” Hiorth, Atheism in the World, 2003, 9. “‘Atheism’ can be defined as ‘lack of belief in a god’. An atheist is does not have any belief in a god. An atheist may be strongly convinced that there is no god. Or an atheist may simply be convinced that it is more likely than not that there is no god. An atheist may admit the possibility that there is a god somewhere, but may also say that the evidence for the existence of a god is hardly worth speaking of.” Hyman, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, 2009, 28.“The meaning of ‘atheism’ is only slightly less contentious. At first sight, it would appear to be more straightforward, for the term can (with fewer qualifications than were necessary with the term ‘modern’) be defined as ‘the belief that God does not exist.’ But immediately, we see that, like the term ‘postmodernism,’ the term ‘atheism’ itself ‘positions the phenomenon as relational. [Theism] as that from which [atheism] is breaking away remains inscribed into the very word with which [atheists] describe [their] distance from [theism].’”

Hyman, A Short History of Atheism, 2010, xviii.“Atheism is an accomplice of modernity in that it shares its fundamental conviction that the truth of the world is, in principle, accessible to human beings through the exercise of their rational, experiential and experimental capacities. … Atheism is inseparably connected not only to modernity, but also to the theism against which it reacts and defines itself.”

Jeffner, The World’s Religions, 1988, 52.“Atheism will then mean a deliberate rejection of all the religious alternatives available at the time.” Lane, The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, 1994, 57. “Atheism may be described as the formal rejection and denial of the existence of God. There are nearly as many shades of atheism as there are theologies. Broadly speaking one can point to at least three different expressions of atheism: theoretical, practical and theological.” Lanman, Religion, Brain, and Behavior, 2012, 1-2.By defining atheism as a lack of all of these beliefs, one is utilizing the constructed category of religion to define atheism, which overlooks the possibility that a lack of belief in supernatural agents and a lack of belief in supernatural healing depend on different cognitive mechanisms. Limiting the definition of atheism to a lack of belief in supernatural agents, however, focuses on a particular cognitive phenomenon.” Lanman, New Scientist, 2011, 38.“I have my own terms for these distinct phenomena: I call the lack of belief in the existence of supernatural agents ‘non-theism’ and the moral opposition to religious beliefs and values ‘strong atheism’.” LeDrew, History of the Human Sciences, 2012, 71.“The distinction between scientific atheism and humanistic atheism is thus necessary because the term ‘atheism’ does not precisely identify the nature of the epistemological and political orientations that characterize various formations of non-belief, as ‘atheism’ is ordinarily defined in terms of a position on nature—for example, Ruse, (2010) claims that it is equivalent to metaphysical naturalism—rather than in terms of humanist philosophy or a sociological position.” Maritain, The Review of Politics, 1949, 267-268.“…there are practical atheists, who believe that they believe in God but who in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds—they worship the world, and power, and money. … Then there are pseudo-atheists, who believe that they do not believe in God but who in reality unconsciously believe in Him, because the god whose existence they deny is not God but something else. … There are absolute atheists, who actually deny the existence of the very God in whom the believers believe—God the Creator, Savior and Father, whose name is infinitely over and above any name we can utter. … By negative atheism I mean a merely negative or destructive process of casting aside the idea of God, which is replaced only by a void. … By positive atheism I mean an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God—that is to say, anti-theism rather than atheism—and at the same time a desperate, I would say heroic, effort to recast and reconstruct the whole human universe of thought and the whole human scale of values according to that state of war against God.”

Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, 1990, 464.“In my usage, positive atheism is positive in the sense that it refers to a positive belief—the belief that there is no god or gods. It is positive in contrast to negative atheism, which has no such positive belief. Of course, in another sense that is not relevant here, what I have called positive atheism is more negative than what I have called negative atheism. Positive atheism denies that one or more gods exist; negative atheism does not.”

Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, 2007, 2.“Negative atheism in the broad sense is then the absence of belief in any god or Gods, not just the absence of a belief in a personal theistic god and negative atheism in the narrow sense is the absence of belief in a theistic God. Positive atheism in the broad sense is, in turn, disbelief in all gods with positive atheism in the narrow sense being the disbelief in a theistic God.” Martin, The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, 2007, 88.“In its broadest sense atheism, from the Greek a (‘without) and theos (‘deity’), standardly refers to the denial of the existence of any god or gods. … In contrast to this strong or positive sense of atheism there is a weak or negative sense that is also compatible with its Greek roots. To be ‘without’ god is not necessarily to deny the existence of any deity; it can simply mean not having a belief in any.” Masterson, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 1965, 136.“Atheism thus presents itself as a negation of theology in favour of anthropology. In other words, contemporary atheism presents itself as a negation of a mythical infinite domination in favour of a finite loving enthusiasm.” Moser, Religious Studies, 2012, 83.“Atheism comes in many flavours. The most common is simple atheism: SA: God does not exist. A more complex flavour is evidential atheism: EA: Owing to the direction of our overall available evidence, we should believe that God does not exist. Doxatic atheism, in contrast, states the following: DA: Some people believe that God does not exist.” Muller, “Gifford Lectures: Lecture 9—The Historical Treatment of Religious Questions,” 1888-1892. “The early Christians were called αθεοι, because they did not believe as the Greeks believed nor as the Jews believed. Spinoza was called an atheist, because his concept of God was wider than that of Jehovah; the Reformers were called atheists, because they would not deify the mother of Christ nor worship the Saints. This is not Atheism in the true sense of the word, and if an historical study of religion had taught us that one lesson only, that those who do not believe in our God are not therefore to be called Atheists, it would have done some real good, and extinguished the fires of many an auto da fe.” Nagel, Basic Beliefs: the Religious Philosophies of Mankind, 1959, 20.“I shall understand by ‘atheism’ a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism.”

O’Hair, Why I am Atheist: Including a History of Materialism, 1991, 21.“Although many American Atheists do not like certain recent associations with the idea—the life-style of all Atheists is basically materialist.”

Palmer, The Atheist’s Creed, 2010, 15. “The word ‘atheism’ is a translation of the Greek atheos, which combines the prefix ‘a’ (meaning ‘not’ or ‘without’) with ‘theos’ (meaning ‘god’). Accordingly the term is most commonly employed as ‘disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God’”

Pasquini, Atheism and Salvation: Atheism from the Perspective of Anonymous Christianity in the Thought of the Revolutionary Mystic and Theologian Karl Rahner, 2000, 27-28.“There are in the modern era, the era which Rahner is primarily concerned with, essentially four expressions of atheism. The first deals with the assertion that God is not needed to understand nature or the secular world. The second deals with the affirmation that one is only free and fully human when one is divorced from God. The third form of atheism is a consequence of the evil and suffering in the world: How can a loving God allow for suffering? In addition, there is a type of atheism which finds no interest in questions of life. This is an atheism of indifference.” (27-28) Rahner, Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, 1975, 47.“Philosophically speaking, atheism means denial of the existence of God or of any (and not merely of a rational) possibility of knowing God (theoretical atheism).” Reid and Mondin, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003, 822.“An atheist is a man who lives without God. If he persists in this state, atheism truly becomes a way of life.” Robertson, The Sociological Interpretation of Religion, 1970, 238.“By positive atheism we mean a cultural circumstance in which the constructive virtues for the human and socio-cultural condition of an anti-religious stance are upheld. The adjective ‘positive’ is appropriate here also because it highlights the secularization theme. Positive atheism shares many of the concrete concerns of orthodox religious belief systems. Its major manifestations are in humanist movements and organizations and the academic intelligentsia.” Ruse, The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, 2010, 229. “I distinguish methodological naturalism, meaning that in doing science one assumes that there are no God-directed supernatural causes like miracles, and metaphysical naturalism which is equivalent to atheism, meaning that there are no supernatural factors or entities, full stop.”

Saler and Ziegler, Temenos, 2006, 7.“We suggest that there are biological factors that relate to the distributions of theism, atheism, and an indifference to one or both. This is not to say that genes directly cause atheism, theism, or indifference. Rather, we argue that genetic variability in human populations may dispose analog differences in sensitivity or insensitivity to various features of behaviorally relevant environments, and that such differences tend to be reflected in attitudinal differences.”

Smart, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2012 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/).“‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, 1989, 7.“The prefix ‘a’ means ‘without,’ so the term ‘a-theism’ literally means ‘without theism,’ or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.” Smith, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, 1991, 58.“Atheism as outright denial can be achieved only if the negative ‘a’ is used, not to qualify the entire meaning of ‘theism,’ but only part of it—i.e., ‘a-theism’ means ‘belief in no god or gods.’ In this interpretation, atheism is construed, not as the absence of belief, but as a particular kind of belief.” Stein, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, 1980, 3.“When we examine the components of the word ‘atheism,’ we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of ‘a-’ and ‘-theism.’ Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix ‘a-’ can mean ‘not’ (or ‘no’) or ‘without.’ If it means ‘not,’ then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means ‘without,’ then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.” Walters, Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed, 2010, 9.“Most people just naturally assume that an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God. This is a decent enough common sense definition, but it’s not very helpful if the point is to analyze philosophical arguments for and against atheism. The trouble with the common sense definition is that it’s too broad. It doesn’t help us distinguish between different levels of nonbelief in God. It doesn’t give us any idea of whether there’s more than one variety of atheism. And it doesn’t tell us anything about the sort of God the atheist doesn’t believe in.”

From reading all these ‘definitions’ we might be led to believe that there are as many ‘types’ of

ATHEISM, as there are ‘types’ of ‘RELIGION.’

SIX TYPES OF ATHEIST*

1. Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic (IAA)2. Activist (AAA)

3. Seeker-Agnostic (SA)4. Anti-Theist5. Non-Theist

6. Ritual Atheist/Agnostic (RAA)

*Christopher F. Silver, “Non-Belief in America Research, http://www.atheismresearch.com (accessed 27 September 2013)

New Terminology designed to encompass all types of Atheism

‘Ir-religion’ “Where a person defines his own behaviour, and it is defined by others, as constituting the rejection of religion, then he is clearly

irreligious.” (Campbell, Toward a Sociology of Irreligion, 32) ‘Unbelief’

“Both religious belief and its obverse unbelief are part of culture: they do not exist in a vacuum. In the European case, both have been formed by the Judaeo Christian tradition which has been part of our heritage for two millennia and – whether we like it or not – has defined the categories in which we

think.” (Davie, “Belief and Unbelief: Two Side of a Coin,” Approaching Religion, 3) ‘Non-Religion’

“Something which is defined primarily by the way it differs from religion. E.g.s might then include atheism, ‘indifference’ to religion and agnosticism would all be examples. Humanism would not be an example (although empirical cases of humanism may well be considered profoundly

nonreligious in practice). Alternative spirituality would not be included where this spirituality is defined fundamentally by its autonomous principles and practices.” (NSRN Glossary, April 2011, via

http://nonreligionandsecularity.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/nsrn-glossary-28-aprl-2011-lois-lee1.pdf)

“A conscious or unconscious lack of commitment to god(s).”

NSRN Glossary, via: http://nonreligionandsecularity.file

s.wordpress.com/2011/11/nsrn-glossary-28-aprl-2011-lois-lee1.pdf

(accessed 1 September 2013)

First: ‘Conscious or Unconscious.’ ‘Conscious’ or ‘unconscious’ seems to imply a sense of implicit or explicit, as if someone might be capable of Atheism against their will (Smith 1989).

Is ‘unconscious’ Atheism something someone takes on, or is it something bestowed upon them, and by whom?

Is the ‘unconscious Atheist’ merely ignorant, or do they merely not ‘know’ what the Theist ‘knows’ in his ‘knowledge’ of God?

Are children ‘unconscious Atheists?’ Is it fair to label them this way? Are people born ‘Atheists?’ (Eller 2004, Baggini 2003)

Second: ‘Lack.’

Does ‘lacking’ the Theist’s belief in the existence of God mean the Atheist is missing something?

Does believing the Atheist is ‘lacking’ the Theist’s belief place our position in the realm of the Theological?

Is our imputation of ‘lack’ a western (Christian) centric perspective? Is this merely a re-translation of the alpha privative ‘a’ from the Greek’ ἄθεος,’ ‘without ‘god?’

If by ‘lack’ we mean ‘without’ how does this relate to our conception of ‘conscious’ or ‘unconscious?’

Third: ‘Commitment.’

By ‘commitment’ do we also mean ‘covenant?’ Is a commitment a promise made, that is then broken? How does our use of ‘commitment’ affect our conception of ‘lack?’ Does the ‘uncommitted’ Atheist ‘lack’ a commitment, and if so, is this implicit or explicit?

Is this a ‘betrayal?’ Is this ‘lack of commitment’ an intellectual (not believing in the Theist’s God) , or existential one (lack of devotion)? (Bullivant 2012)

Fourth: ‘God(s).’

Is our Atheist rejecting monotheism or polytheism, or a different category of Theism?

In clarifying this, does it change the context? (Quack 2012) Does our Atheist reject all supernatural beliefs in something transcendent? If our Atheist is directly rejecting the Theist’s belief in the existence of a monotheistic deity, does this also mean they reject the non-Theist’s religious beliefs and practices under the category of ‘non-religion?’ (Converse 2003, et al. See next slide)

If our Atheist is ‘non-religious’ in his rejection of both types of Theism, as well as non-Theistic religion, how do we define ‘religion’ in this context?

How did these definitions come about?

What shaped the formation of these definitions, in these ways?

How did defining this term become so ambiguous?

How does this discourse shape the concept of Atheism?

What does this discourse, defining the term in these different ways, look like?

Rather than merely ‘picking’ one of these definitions, or manufacturing a ‘new one,’ we

might better proceed by asking:

When viewed as a ‘Field of discourse,’ HOW DOES INTERPRETING THE DISCOURSE ON DEFINING ‘ATHEISM’ RELATE TO DEFINING ‘RELIGION?’

Discourse Analysis and the Definition of ‘Religions’

Defining Religion:

“From its beginnings the academic study of religion has been concerned with the question of defining religion or,

as the singular already denotes a program, religions. Definitions of religions established branches of scholarly tradition and various approaches to the subject, so that James H. Leuba could mention no less than fifty (more or less) different definitions in his list (Leuba 1912:

appendix).” (von Stuckrad, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 2003, 262.)

“Our object of study is the way religion is organized, discussed, and discursively materialized in cultural and social contexts. ‘Religion,’ in this approach, is an empty signifier that can be filled

with many different meanings, depending on the use of the word in a given society and context. It is this use of ‘religion’—including the generic definitions of academics—that is the responsibility of scholars to explain. Making the discourse on religion the main focus of our work also acknowledges the fact that we as scholars are ourselves actors on the

fields of discourse.” (Kocku von Stuckrad, “Reflection on the Limits of Reflection: An Invitation to the Discursive Study of Religion” ( Method and Theory in the Study of Religion,

Vol. 22, 2010),166.)

An ‘Empty Signifier’

‘religion’ vs. ‘RELIGION’‘religion’ refers to contributions to a discourse on religion, while ‘RELIGION’ refers to the discourse itself. After this clarification, we can go a step further and define RELIGION

simply as follows:

RELIGION IS THE SOCIETAL ORGANIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT religion

‘Atheism’ vs. ‘ATHEISM’‘Atheism’ refers to contributions to a discourse on Atheism, while ‘ATHEISM’ refers to the discourse itself. After this clarification, we can go a step further and define ATHEISM

simply as follows:

ATHEISM IS THE SOCIETAL ORGANIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT Atheism

‘Atheism’ vs. ‘ATHEISM’‘Atheism’ refers to contributions to a discourse on religion, while ‘ATHEISM’ refers to the discourse itself. After this clarification, we can go a step further and define ATHEISM

simply as follows:

ATHEISM IS THE SOCIETAL ORGANIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT Atheism

‘Atheism,’ as an EMPTY SIGNIFIER, can “be activated with definitions, meanings, and communicational practices.”

Analyzed within the context of HISTORICAL DISCOURSE, Atheism appears to develop within “changing sociopolitical and

historical settings,” providing us with a means by which to “reconstruct” a

genealogical meaning of the term, and thus giving us a more clarified perspective, rather than merely contributing to the equivocal and

ambiguous field itself.

ATHEISM IS DEFINED VIA THREE BROAD CATEGORIES

MODERN ATHEISM

POSITIVE VS. NEGATIVE

CLASSIC ATHEISM


MODERN ATHEISMTHREE DISTINCTIONS

1. A parasitic dependency on modern Theism

2. The ‘subject to object turn’ by means of ‘rational-naturalism’

3. The adoption of the term as a self-avowed identity, rather than

mere imputation

“A bond of necessity stretches between them: atheism depends upon theism for its vocabulary,

for its meaning, and for the hypotheses it rejects.” (Buckley, At the Origins of Modern Atheism,

15)

“…atheism’ is nothing more than the denial of the claims of theism.” (Cliteur, Journal of Religion and Society, 12)

“Again it is essentially reactive, taking as its starting point the basic beliefs of

a religion or society and offering a revisionist or skeptical judgment upon these.” (Ferguson, Faith and Its

Critics, 17)

“When the human subject masters reality by means of reason and/or science, the self comes to

understand itself as existing in a fundamentally nominative mode. That is to say, the self becomes

the subject that applies the disciplines of reason and science to the world, which is thereby conceived

to be the object of that activity.” (Hyman, A Short History of Atheism, xvii)

“That is, a theism grounded upon a conception of God as a natural entity amenable to scientific

investigation would inevitably fail when the evidence failed to demonstrate his role in nature, but rather seemed to demonstrate more and more that the

concept of God was not required to explain nature.” (LeDrew, History of the Human

Sciences, 74)

“The emergence of atheism at this time fits in with the progressive story of atheism that sees its roots in the birth of Western rationality in Ancient Greece. Just as naturalism and rationalism, atheism’s forebears, were

the fruits of the progression from myth to reason, so atheism as an avowed doctrine is the fruit of the progression to Enlightenment values.” (Baggini, Atheism: a Very Short Introduction, 79)


CLASSICAL ATHEISM

DEFINED AS THE OPPOSITE OF ‘MODERN ATHEIM,’ CLASSICAL ATHEISM EMBODIES A GENERAL IMPUTATION OF POLITICAL CENSURE

“In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure

and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced.”

(Drachmann, Atheism in Pagan Antiquity, 5)

“It was because their bold questioning seemed to undermine the official gods of the state and thus endanger public order that Anaxagoras and Protagoras were forced to flee Athens, and a similar

suspicion at the trial of Socrates contributed to his condemnation.” (Gordon, Literary Atheism, 1)

“Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first

coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an

epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of

the day.” (Aveling, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2)

“If we find atheism at all, it is usually a ‘soft’ atheism or the imputation of

atheism to others as a means to discredit them.” (Bremmer, The Cambridge

Companion to Atheism, 11)

“If there were expressions of atheism in Greco-Roman antiquity, these were for the most part directed against the prevailing civic religions or the popular polytheistic

superstitions of the masses.” (Reid and Mondin, The New Catholic

Encyclopedia, 822)


POSITIVE vs. NEGATIVE

THE PREDOMINATE MEANS OF DEFINING ATHEISMDELINEATED BETWEEN A PRE- AND POST-FLEW ADAPTATION

PRE-FLEWThe first use of the paradigm comes from

Aveling (1907), who cites ‘positive Atheism’ as a “dogmatic denial,” and

‘negative Atheism’ as a “lack of physical data” for Theism, both of which under the

category or the ‘theoretic.’ Positive Theoretic Atheism“The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic

denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism.”

Negative Theoretic Atheism“A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based

either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism.”

*Aveling, “Atheism” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2 (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907)




The Post-Aveling, Pre-Flew use of the ‘Positive vs. Negative’ paradigm is defined by philosophical

justifications, such as, “an active struggle” against God, or as beliefs that are “destructive”

or “constructive” in nature. (Maritain 1949, Fabro 1968, and Robertson 1970) Positive: “By positive atheism I mean an

active struggle against everything that reminds us of God—that is to say, anti-theism rather than

atheism.”

Negative: “By negative atheism I mean a merely negative or destructive process of casting aside the idea of God, which is replaced only by a

void..” (Maritain, The Review of Politics, 268)

Positive: “We can thus speak of a positive atheism. We shall directly see the most salient features of those forms of atheism that could

be called constructive atheism, as opposed to the destructive atheism of the

materialism of antiquity and of the illuministic currents.” (Fabro, God in Exile,

7) Positive: “(e) Positive atheism: By positive atheism we mean a cultural circumstance in

which the constructive virtues for the human and socio-cultural condition of an anti-religious stance are upheld. The adjective ‘positive’ is appropriate here also because it highlights the secularization theme. Positive atheism shares many of the concrete concerns of orthodox religious belief systems. Its major manifestations are in humanist movements and organizations and the academic intelligentsia.”

(Robertson, The Sociological Interpretation of Religion, 238)




Flew’s (1976) conception of ‘Positive vs. Negative’ Atheism

Defined by the theory that all people are ‘born Atheist,’ and that Atheism, as an ‘implicit’ condition, places the “onus of proof” upon the Theist, requiring him to justify his belief to

the Atheists of the world.“I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such

other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-

existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative

atheist' for the latter.” (Flew, The Presumption of Atheism, 14)




POST-FLEWAfter Flew, the ‘positive vs. negative’ paradigm is defined by a dichotomous ‘explicitness’ and ‘implicitness.’

(Stein 1980 and Smith 1989)“When we examine the components of the word ‘atheism,’ we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of ‘a-’ and ‘-theism.’ Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix ‘a-’ can mean ‘not’ (or ‘no’) or ‘without.’ If it means ‘not,’ then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means ‘without,’ then an

atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.” (Stein, An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, 3)

“An explicit atheist is one who rejects belief in a god. This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic beliefs and is sometimes characterized as

anti-theism.” (17)

“An implicit atheist is a person who does not believe in a god, but who has not explicitly rejected or denied the truth of theism. Implicit atheism does not require familiarity with the idea of god.” (Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, 14)



Both marked by an ‘absence of belief,’ the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ Atheist are defined by their ‘knowledge’ of God’s

existence, not just their ‘rejection or denial of it.(Maritain 1990 and Palmer 2010)

“In my usage, positive atheism is positive in the sense that it refers to a positive belief—the belief that there is no god or gods. It is positive in contrast to negative atheism, which has no such positive belief.

Of course, in another sense that is not relevant here, what I have called positive atheism is more negative than what I have called negative atheism. Positive atheism denies that one or more gods exist; negative

atheism does not.” (464)“Consequently, I use ‘negative atheism’ in its most fundamental sense to mean an absence of belief in

any god or gods, not just the absence of belief in a personal god. Let us call this the broad sense of negative atheism.” (Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, 464-465)

“Positive or explicit atheism, in other words, by consciously denying God’s existence, knows full well what it is about, and provides within the history of ideas those full-scale frontal assaults upon the claims of

religion by which atheism is more generally characterized. Viewed in this light, the suggestion that all children are atheists becomes inappropriate. For uninstructed children, not knowing god, can say nothing about God one way or the other, and are therefore in no position to reject (or indeed support) any theistic

claims.” (17-18)“In other words, perhaps we should agree that an atheist is not someone who, having tested the appropriate theological argument, concludes that these arguments are spurious and that no such being exists; but rather, that an atheist is someone marked by the absence of belief: he or she simply has no belief in God. On these terms, the atheist is, properly speaking, not concerned with the matter of God at all. For how

can one repudiate something when one has no conception of what one is denying?” (Palmer, The Atheist’s Creed, 16)



What this paradigm eventually produces is a broad conception of ‘Negative’ Atheism that removes the Atheist from the context of his relationship with the Theistic belief in the existence of a specific modern monotheistic Abrahamic Deity, and places him in

the context of any sort of doubt, skepticism, denial, rejection, including agnosticism.

(Hiorth 1995, Walters 2010, and Bullivant 2012)“The nontheist does not necessarily deny the existence of god, but he may do so. This is also sometimes called ‘agnosticism’ or ‘negative

atheism’. The nontheist is not necessarily a theoretical atheist, but he may be so.”

(Hiorth, Introduction to Atheism, 34)

“Overt disbelief or atheism, which can be further subdivided into (a) positive atheism, an active disbelief in God and (b) negative atheism, the

absence of belief in God.” (Walters, Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed, 12)

“For the purposes of this study, then, the word ‘atheist’ will signify the following: a person who is without a belief in God (or gods). This encompasses both those who believe that God does not exist, and those who, while not necessarily disbelieving, do not possess a

belief in God’s existence either. Among others who follow those broad, neutral definition of ‘atheist,’ these two categories are often designated ‘positive atheism’ (believing-not) and ‘negative

atheism’ (not-believing) respectively.” (Bullivant, The Salvation of Atheists, 16)



Extending the limits of Atheism based upon its etymological roots causes the inevitable imputation of the term upon non-Theistic

‘religions,’ such as Jainism, Buddhism, or Confucianism, as well as offers a re-conceptualization of how we define ‘religion.’

(Martin 2007 and Cliteur 2010)

“By the more limited definition of atheism as the denial of the God of the monotheists, polytheists are atheists. From the perspective of atheism as a-theism, Greek and Roman

polytheism has to be called ‘atheist,’ for instance. The depiction of ultimate reality as impersonal (as we find in the earlier Hindu Upanishads) would also be classified as atheist. Theravada Buddhism and

Jainism, which also reject a creator God, have to be classed as atheist on this account too. So does pantheism, being a rejection of a personal God.” (Cliteur, Philosophy Now, 7)

“Using this distinction one can say that Jainism is an atheistic religion in the narrow sense in that it

rejects the theistic creator God but not in the broad sense since it accepts lesser gods who have no

spiritual significance.” (Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, 223)

“Thus, it is not implausible to suppose that Confucius was a negative atheist in the narrow sense; that is, that he did not hold the view that an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God exists.” (Martin, The Cambridge Companion

to Atheism, 229)“To be sure, it is not disputed that belief in a god or gods is a part of Mahayana Buddhism. The numerous bodhisattvas, the Buddha Amitabha, and the cosmic Buddha nature seem to be

like the gods or god of Western religion.” (Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, 224)





(explicit)(implicit)





(explicit)(implicit)(‘negative’ or ‘without’)





(explicit)(implicit)(‘negative’ or ‘without’)

(the ‘denial’ or ‘rejection’ of any type of ‘deity’)

ETHNOGRAPHY OF ATHEISM

The Literary Turn

• Marcus and Cushman, “Ethnographies as Texts” (1982)“Thus, the current trend is characterized by texts that are very personally written, and are nonetheless emulative in search of new conventions, quite like the classic pattern of development in literary genres.” (26-27)

• Clifford, Writing Culture (1986)“It has long been asserted that scientific anthropology is also an ‘art,’ that ethnographies have literary qualities.” (4)

• Geertz, Works and Lives (1988)“The clash between the expository conventions of author-saturated texts and those of author-evacuated ones that grows out of the particular nature of the ethnographic enterprise is imagined to be a clash between seeing things as one would have them and seeing them as they really are.” (9)

The Literary Turn

“‘The literary turn,’ most broadly, can be understood as anthropology turning its attention to its own processes of

inscription.” (Rapport, Literary Anthropology, 2012)

“Literary processes—metaphor, figuration, narrative—affect the ways cultural phenomena are registered, from the first jotted

‘observations,’ to the completed book, to the ways these configurations ‘make sense’ in determined acts of reading.”

(Clifford, Writing Culture, 4)

• Self-Reflexivity• The ‘voice’ of the Ethnographer

• Auto-Ethnography (the ethnographer as active voice in the ethnography

• ‘True Fictions’• Ethnographic Realism (borrowed from fictional realism)

• Faction: “imaginative writing about real people in real places at real times” (Geertz, 1988)

Ethnography as Fiction

[The Ethnographic novel]Ethnography written with aesthetic

intent, influenced by the literary self-reflexivity of the ‘Writing Culture’

debate and the ‘Literary Turn’ o Michael Jackson, Barawa and the Ways the Birds Fly in the Sky

(1986)

o Timothy Knab, A War of Witches (1997) o Richard and Sally Price, Enigma Variations (1995)

Fiction as Ethnography

[The Novel as Ethnography]The ‘inevitable’ next step that sees

aesthetically manufactured fictions read as ethnographies, based upon the shift

toward writing and reading ethnographies in aesthetic ways via the ethnographic

novel.

o Mittelholzer’s A Morning at the Office, Naipaul’s A House for Mr.

Biswas, and Lovelace’s The Dragon Can’t Dance

(Eriksen 1994)

o Sitt Marie Rose, by Etel Adnan(Fernea 1989)

o The Water House, by Antonio Olinto

(Tallman 2002)

“ian mcewan and atheist ethnography: testing the ethnographic value of fiction in defining modern...

Documents