Yes, in the academic community, where precise and cogent definitions MATTER.
Here’s how it would go in philosophy:
A: “I lack a belief in God.”
B: “Do you mean you hold there is no God or that you suspend judgment? That statement doesn’t differentiate.”
A: *picks one*
A: “I lack a belief in God.”
B: “Do you mean you hold there is no God or that you suspend judgment? That statement doesn’t differentiate.”
A: *picks one*
If A holds that God does not exist, then A would be expected to present his reasoned justification.
If A has suspended judgment, then A would be expected to present his reasoned justification for THAT.
No one has ever sufficiently justified EITHER position.
If A has suspended judgment, then A would be expected to present his reasoned justification for THAT.
No one has ever sufficiently justified EITHER position.
No one has ever even come CLOSE to showing that God does not exist. The best that has been done is to show that IF one DEFINES God in a contradictory manner, THEN God-so-defined does not exist. But 🤷🏻♀️ to that.
And no one has even come close to showing that there is INSUFFICIENT EPISTEMIC WARRANT for belief in God in any strong sense, except again, by defining epistemic warrant in a problematic way so as to exclude belief in God from the outset.
But 🤷🏻♀️ to that.
But 🤷🏻♀️ to that.
Not only has no one show there is insufficient epistemic warrant GENERALLY, no one has managed to make even a remotely non question begging case that believers are NOT WARRANTED in their belief.
So again, 🤷🏻♀️.
So again, 🤷🏻♀️.
Philosophy doesn’t help atheism.
It is true, sociologically, that most philosophers TODAY are atheists, but this is not true of philosophers who have studied philosophy of religion seriously.
It is true, sociologically, that most philosophers TODAY are atheists, but this is not true of philosophers who have studied philosophy of religion seriously.
One can of course CLAIM THAT those who already believe are drawn to philosophy of religion, but NO ONE has ever been able to SHOW THAT either, as more than a hypothesis, and there’s good indication in isn’t the case, since many philosophers do change their minds.
Antony Flew, one of the most prominent atheistic philosophers of the 20th century—the inventor of the “lack of belief” re-definition of atheism, in fact—became convinced there is a God, although not a personalistic one, after FINALLY reading Aristotle in his retirement.
Personally I think it is bordernline a criminal offense for a philosopher to REACH retirement without having read Aristotle, but I’m traditional like that.
