Where Jeopardy's definition of Atheism came from

Not according to oxford.

This didn't exactly make headlines, but there are a lot of heads colliding with desks right now.

Here, Jeopardy incorrectly defines atheism (new window).

What's the true definition? Where did this definition actually come from? Why does it matter? Keep reading.

If you're actually unsure about the true definition of atheism is, don't worry man. I've got you covered.

Atheism: 

• A disbelief in the existence of deity, or the doctrine that there is no deity (Merriam-webster) 
• The doctrine or belief that there is no God, or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. (dictionary.reference.com)
• Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (Oxforddictionaries.com)

You may think it’s weird to disbelieve in God, but you at least recognize what atheism is.  So how does Jeopardy define it? 

"THE ACTIVE, PRINCIPLED DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD”

What the crap? Where did that come from? 

I am a wizard, and thus was able to find out.  Jeopardy's definition of atheism came from the book "Isms & 'Ologies: All the movements, ideologies and doctrines that have shaped our world", authored by Arthur Goldwag. 

If you're an atheist, you probably aren't too surprised. You're kind of used to this thing by now, aren't you?

It seems consistent. After all, someone who actively denies the existence of God probably also disbelieves in his existence.  However, it's completely wrong, and hurts the atheist community.

Let me show you how ridiculous this definition is by contrasting Jeopardy's definition of atheism with an actual definition, "a disbelief in the existence of deity."

Claim 1): Atheism is the active, principled denial of the existence of God [...]

We can easily refute the central point here because this definition is demonstrably incorrect (and misleading). 

1A) Jeopardy's definition doesn't address belief. Under Jeopardy's definition, someone who believes in God while actively denying it is an atheist. Since this only addresses the action of denial, it creates straw man scenarios where believers can claim that atheists actually believe in God, but are just angry with him.

1B) Jeopardy's definition ignores polytheism by keeping God singular. By keeping God singular, believing in multiple gods doesn't present itself as an option. Other definitions address polytheism by keeping 'gods' plural.

1C) Jeopardy's definition of atheism does not exclude Christians. Christians actively deny the existence of Thor and Allah, so other religions may claim that christians are atheists because they actively deny the existence of 'the true God'.

1D) The use of principled creates more contradictions.  By definition, a principled action (denying God) is an action that either 1) must be based on a set of rules, or 2) indicate recognition of the concepts of right and wrong.

"Atheism: the active, principled denial of the existence of God." - Jeopardy.

Actual atheists who also actively deny the existence of God are still not necessarily atheists under Jeopardy's definition. They denial part has to be out of principle. (If everything is done out of principle, the use of the word is redundant, presenting another flaw to Jeopardy's definition).

Summary: Under Jeopardy's definition of atheism......people who don't believe in God aren't necessarily atheists, and Christians aren't necessarily not atheists. Contradicting these well established definitions creates straw man arguments against both parties and implies states of denial instead of addressing true belief.

If that wasn't bad enough, even Jeopardy omitted Goldwig's entire definition of atheism, found in his book. It's that bad.

Atheism: the active, principled denial of the existence of God, as opposed to skepticism, indifference, or ignorance on the subject.  Was that little add-on necessary?  It's in the same sentence as the definition, so it's in fact not an add-on, but necessary to the definition itself.

In definitions, words are to take on their very literal meaning. Let's assume Goldwig is using the literal definition of oppose, which is the opposite of support.

X can't opposed and support Y at the same time, in the same sense. Goldwig's definition of atheism claims that it isn't (and can't be) supported by skepticism. This creates a false dichotomy, where these ideas must be mutually exclusive. One cannot adhere to atheism and skepticism. However, this is demonstrably false.

The less formal idiom "as opposed to" may only imply a significant contrast between two things. Oxford's example of this is 'an approach that is theoretical as opposed to practical'. Theory and practice compliment each other, dealing with the same things. and are not opposites. By choosing 'as opposed to', Goldwig's may be implying that atheism and skepticism share the same relationship, complimenting each other. However, remember that Goldwig's definition of atheism only addresses the act of denial. Skepticism affects belief states and has little to do with arbitrary acts of denial, so we can only make two intellectually honest assumptions. Either...
A) Goldwig meant 'opposed' to take on its literal definition, or
B) Goldwig has trouble understanding 'skepticism' as well as atheism.    

Let's assume he meant the literal definition for now.

Claim 2:) Atheism is opposed to skepticism
2A) This is demonstrably false, as atheists under every other definition may consider themselves skeptics.

Claim 3:) Atheism is opposed to indifference on the subject.

3A:) Demonstrably false.  Being indifferent to a claim (God exists) may be the exact reason why belief is withheld. If I withhold my belief towards the claim God exists, I am an atheist by definition. (Yes, I would be agnostic as well). 

Claim 4:) Atheism is opposed to ignorance on the subject.

4A:) Demonstrably false. If I am completely ignorant to the concept of what a God is, I will most likely not believe in one. People also believe and disbelieve in things due to bad reasons, so a person's atheism may in fact be supported by ignorance towards the subject.

Goldwag's clear bias against atheism.

Set his logically fallacious definition aside for a second. Goldwag's writing also demonstrates a strong bias against atheism by being extremely one-sided in a quote that immediately follows the definition.  He quotes C.S. Lewis, who found it ironic that "Atheists express their rage against God, although in their view He does not exist."

On the surface, Lewis seems to firmly understand that atheists don't believe in God. But do you ever just get mad at Santa, and shout, "I hate you, Santa. Why are you suck a jerk?" No, because you would have to believe in Santa before truly being angry with him. Claiming that atheists express rage against God is a massive generalization, and suggests that atheists are dishonest in their lack of belief.  By quoting Lewis, Goldwig appears to agree with the statement.

By quoting Lewis, Goldwig either...
1) agrees that atheism deals with a belief state and not the act of denial, and his definition is intentionally inaccurate and insufficient, or
2) doesn't firmly grasp the difference between denying a concept and not believing in it. 

Atheists are already one of the least trusted groups in America, and are statistically trusted less than rapists. The definition Goldwig and Jeopardy agree on is not the definition most atheists identify with, putting them in an extremely dishonest position. 

Jeopardy is a popular TV show. You can view their facebook page here.
Goldwig is an accomplished author. You can see a list of his accomplishments here.

Godspeed, and don't forget to call a spade a spade.

-RationalJesse.


_______________________________________

Originally posted on RationalJesse.blogspot.com 

I just made Twitter. Follow me and stuff. @RationalJesse 

_________________________________________