In an earlier post Cris pointed out:
And Counterbalance I don’t believe there is a fine line between the positions here. However, I’m open to suggestion.
I should say first that I’m not attempting to speak for Q. I thought I recognized a distinction he’d called to Cris’s attention in his “case study of Adam” post, and in his related posts. Rather than make an improper as well as an incorrect assumption I asked Q to verify my translation, which he did. If it happens that he still agrees with what I’ve written here, that’s fine. If not, he can comment further as or when he likes.
Perhaps also worth nothing, the “Adam” described in this post should not be confused with the individual who authored this thread. There may be some similarities in the two “Adams” and their respective outlooks, but drawing such comparisons is not the point of
this post.
~~~
Cris:
I don’t think you are in error with your definitions and explanations of what an “atheist” is, or of what “atheism” means. You’ve covered it about as well as any serious and learned “atheist” could--on this thread and elsewhere. Even so, under that correctly defined label of “atheist” I think we could exclude one type of human who does all that a properly defined “atheist” would seem to do when
rationally rejecting a claim that gods exists--due to a lack of evidence... but who does not precisely fit the label of “atheist” because that same rational method of judging (thinking) is applied across the board in Adam's case; applied to every sort of consideration Adam might make. A “skeptic” by common standards, yes, but again not quite the perfect fit. The case study “Adam” I’m thinking of is not necessarily a common human individual. (which is why it was appropriate that he be presented as a ‘case study,’ imo.)
To borrow briefly from Neil Peart of Rush:
No, his mind is not for rent. To any god or government...
We could back that up and just say that Adam's mind is not for rent. Period.
Depending on one’s view, Adam's type and use of rationality is above, beyond (or even below) what is commonly asserted or considered to be “rational” thought.
For Adam it’s not only a lack of belief in gods due to a lack of evidence. It‘s his whole mindset. “Belief” doesn’t enter the picture for Adam with respect to anything, any topic. The concept of “belief” or “disbelief” is not acceptable to Adam.
Adam doesn’t care if the rest of the world wishes to label him, or even wishes to argue over whether or not he‘s been labeled correctly. By his standards, it would be irrational of him to care what the rest of the world does in this (and many other) respect(s).
Adam has no use for labels much as he has no use for a concept of “belief.” Again, Adam is willing to think in terms of “acceptable as far as we know.” Full stop. And this means that whatever theory or proposition he encounters, or even comes up with himself, is only ever going to be a working model for the duration of his own interest in it. And this is because Adam understands that, as he is, he is limited in his ability to be certain about what is possible or not, what is absolutely true or false. Curiosity, a natural human tendency to explore, experience, and grow, along with very well-developed rational self-interest, are what fuel his willingness to work with some ideas in the manner he does. And even to work with some ideas at all.
Adam would not agree that it is natural or appropriate for him, a human, to care about much that other modern day men claim he should, or to care in a
way or to a degree that others say he should. Adam really, really doesn’t care. In my opinion, Adam is a more evolved human being. A man before his time. Fortunately he (and the rest of mankind to a lesser extent) has evolved to such a point that he can live in the present world and among great numbers of people who are (for one reason or another) enslaved by deeply rooted habits of irrational thinking. Adam is not a superman as some philosophers have idealized, but rather a relatively rare human specimen that has realized more of his human potential than most others have to date. He is not necessarily the “epitome.” He is an “advancement.”
In a sense, Adam is bypassing all the futile intellectual hubbub and friction that is attached to a question of (or debate over) whether or not gods exist, or whether or not any god was involved with the creation of the world as we understand it so far.
In a post to you, Q quoted your definition and query:
(a) = no or absence of.
(theism) = belief in a god.
= no belief in a god, or absence of belief in a god.
Are we in agreement?
Inasmuch as it matters to most people, yes. We can agree that Adam has “no belief in a god, or [has an] absence of belief in a god.” But what we actually have is an individual who is more than an “atheist.” (Or less, depending on how one chooses to interpret this.) Adam falls on the other side of a fine line because of the nature--the breadth and the depth--of his rationality and his ability to use it. It could even be that Adam has actually evolved in a purely physical sense--biologically, chemically--which affects the type and strength of emotions he deals with, and how, and which enables Adam to behave in a more suitable pro-survival way for humans.
By and large it will often appear that Adam is “zigging” along with the rest of us; that he’s not particularly unusual. In many respects he’s not that different. Yet in the most fundamental construct of “who is Adam?” there is a deviation (a “zag”) that, in the eyes of some, set him apart and free him from what would be a restrictive classification for his “type” of mind and being. No set of beliefs for Adam, no subscriptions, no doctrines, only a tried and true method of mentally processing any proposition at all.
Since it’s not my place (or desire) to elaborate on the query-response Q offered in the original post (now quoted above) I’ve offered my own explanation for why I see a “fine line” between the positions.
The only thing further I would add at this point, and as I’ve asserted in the past...
part of being an “Atheist” is being rational; exhibiting rational behavior. One uses a rationality that I think is appropriate to humans when one rationally concludes there is insignificant evidence to “believe” that gods exist. However, an “Atheist” that fits the common and correct definition of “Atheist” can
also make any number of irrational decisions about other matters, though they are a true “Atheist.”
An “Atheist”
can be a wife-beater, a petty thief, a gangster, or an otherwise unbalanced human who is capable of carrying out a variety of harmful, irrational actions. We don’t hear as much about them, true. This could be because in comparison, far fewer atheists have actively, publicly “taken up a cross” against religion, while the world has been, and is, full of religious extremist who only live for one type of martyrdom or another, and who have gladly sought it at the cost of millions of human lives.
As has been asserted previously, the fact that sound rationality (“sound” for that individual) was required to make the “I am an Atheist” conclusion is an integral
part of what, in total, does constitute an “atheist.” But wearing the label of “atheist” does nothing more than make a general, though reasonably accurate, type of distinction about one’s view on a specific notion.
Adam, on the other hand, and due to the extent to which he’s explored, developed and uses the human tool of rational thought, doesn’t fit perfectly under even the most precisely or correctly designed label of “Atheism.”
I hoped I’ve succeeded in explaining why anyone might give the “fine line” distinction some credence. If not, then it might be best if I take a cue from our case study “Adam” and simply let it ride. It’s not important to me that my opinion on the matter be accepted. If over time a majority of humans determine that such a distinction is real and significant, I’m quite sure it won’t be me, or Q, or likely anyone we know here who’ll be credited with having noticed it before. I think this “strain” of rational human has been amongst us for a while. Just hasn’t been rational for
them to call excess attention to themselves.
~~~
Thx,
Counterbalance
~~~
Btw, we’re currently in the throes of moving or would have gotten back to this sooner. Apologies for the delay.
OK pookie, I’m not going to argue this issue with you anymore, there’s simply no point.
