Loading debate…
The Definition of Atheism & its effects
Summaries in our own words. Those marked as AI drafts were written by AI from the recording's captions and have not been checked by a person, so a summary or its speaker may be wrong. Every timestamp opens that moment on the host's channel so you can check it.
Jump defined atheism as having no reason to believe in a god. He said this is a neutral claim that does not take on the burden of showing God does not exist, and that his burden is to show the reasons for belief fail or that there are none.
Jump argued that everything starts as imaginary until demonstrated otherwise, so an asserted god exists only in the mind until shown otherwise. He said this meets the burden of proof in line with the philosophical definition and should suffice as a general definition.
Converse read from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that atheism is defined in terms of theism and is the proposition that God does not exist, with the A meaning negation rather than absence. He argued that a philosophical conversation should start from the terms professional philosophers use.
Jump replied that because atheism describes his own position, he may define it as he chooses and whether others accept the definition is irrelevant. He said a critic who does not accept it would be straw-manning his position, so an honest exchange requires engaging with his definition.
Converse argued that if each side defined its own term, as in his example of an 'a-atheist', the conversation would go nowhere. He said starting from the propositions that God exists or does not exist, as Paul Draper does, would allow progress because atheism then directly answers the question.
Jump said his definition is a positive claim that there is no evidence, so the question can be resolved in the same way: either there is evidence or there is not. He argued this focuses on what atheists care about, namely whether there is any reason to believe in a god.
Converse suggested that some groups use the softer lack-of-belief definition to include agnostics and Christian fideists and so enlarge their group. He asked Jump whether that is what Jump would call it.
Asked by Converse why he leans toward atheism given no evidence, Jump said his position is that things are imaginary until demonstrated otherwise, which is the default. He said an asserted entity does not exist until shown to exist.
Jump replied that showing the supernatural in natural terms is possible, though he said his point does not require him to do it. He later said the supernatural can be demonstrated scientifically.
Converse argued that science can show only natural things, so the supernatural cannot be shown in natural terms. He gave a testable-prediction example, a ghost named Bob producing a gold brick on prayer, and suggested the supernatural might not be testable at all, which he said gives no reason to believe it.
Jump replied that the term was originally used in the weak sense, citing Baron d'Holbach in the 1700s, who used it to state what he believed rather than as a political move to gain inclusivity. He said the origin of the term lies in what the people using it believed.
Jump clarified that he does not claim to know what caused the universe to begin and offers no alternative cause. He said his only claim is that the arguments and evidence offered for God do not work.
Converse argued that saying there is no good evidence does not answer questions such as cause, purpose and fine-tuning, and that at some point answers must be given. He pointed to Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre, who gave positive arguments, such as the argument from evil, and stated consequences of atheism.
Jump said equivocation between theists and atheists is common in debates, and that he states his definition of atheism at the start of every debate so that no equivocation can occur.
An audience member asked whether Converse and Steve McCrae use their definition of atheism to gain members. Converse answered that his remark about the left was an analogy, that he is not promoting a channel or trying to convert anyone, and that he is trying to clarify definitions.
An audience member asked what the point is of Jump using a stipulative definition when both sides agree on the philosophical one. Jump answered that his definition represents his own position, whereas the philosophical definition does not, so he does not use it.
An audience member asked how atheism, defined as having no good evidence for a god, differs from agnosticism. Jump answered that the modern atheist position treats everything as imaginary until demonstrated, so it holds no burden of proof, while agnostics say they do not know. Converse said he disagreed that this is the modern consensus and suggested the phrase points to new atheist writers.
Converse said that if atheism and Christianity are compatible under the definition, he would not typically use it, since he thinks it does not get the conversation anywhere. He argued the definition is inclusive, which he believes is why it is popular, and that it communicates a personal position rather than an answer to whether God exists.
Jump closed that his definition represents his own position, which is that there is no evidence for God, and that it does not say whether God exists. He argued that it moves the conversation forward and that others' agreement with it does not matter, since it is his own position.
Suggested from the title and not yet checked by a person.
This debate was made for and published by the channel below. Watching it there supports the host.
Converse argued that under the lack-of-reasons definition, a Christian fideist who believes in God without good reasons would count as an atheist, so the term breaks down.
Jump replied that one can be an epistemic atheist, holding there are no reasons to believe in a god, while being an ontological theist who believes God exists, so there is no contradiction.
Converse argued that Draper identifies atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God, and that an epistemic version saying no good reasons exist is almost indistinguishable from agnosticism.
Jump replied that his position is not agnosticism, because the atheist holds that things are imaginary until demonstrated otherwise, so the atheist has already met the burden of proof in the epistemic sense. He said agnostics do not take the position that a god could or could not exist.
Jump replied that whoever makes a positive claim that God exists holds the burden of proof. He said an atheist can say the evidence is insufficient without offering an alternative hypothesis.
Jump said anything that exists, whether natural, supernatural or otherwise, must be distinguished from something imaginary. He said some criterion is needed to show something is real rather than imaginary, and any method, natural or supernatural, would do if it works.
Converse argued that Jump sets the terms in his favour by claiming that if something cannot be shown to be non-imaginary in natural terms, then it is not the case.
Converse argued that the definition is integral to Jump's framework, and that using a non-philosophical definition would change the framework by creating a burden of proof for the atheist. He said Jump's response, to avoid straw-manning, leaves the definition open to change.
Jump replied that definitions are arbitrary and that language works by stipulated meanings, so anyone may choose a definition. He said a definition cannot be good or bad, only arbitrary, and it is an acceptable way to state a position.
Converse argued that the lack-of-reasons definition does not negate theism, and that many Christians would fall within it. He said this has an adverse effect on debate communities, which must negotiate terms rather than affirm a proposition about whether God exists.
Jump said he is interested in conversations with philosophers and professors, who have no problem with his definition once it is stated. He said the lack-of-belief definition is the majority definition among popular atheists, such as Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, and among groups like American Atheists and the American Humanist Association.
Converse said Draper's Stanford entry discusses new atheism and treats its positions as not new, and he did not think the majority claim among atheists is supported. He asked Jump for a citation for it.
Jump argued that an appeal to authority applies only in the field where the authority lies, and that he is the only authority on the definition of his own position. He said the views of other philosophers on that definition are therefore not relevant.
Jump said he treats morality as objective, meaning it has a standard independent of human minds, while definitions are arbitrary and made up by people. He said the atheism definition is not claimed to be objectively correct, whereas morality is.
Converse said he can only hold Jump to consistency. He argued that Jump takes a theist's position, relabels it as naturalism, and presents it as an alternative, which he said is an inverse move that goes nowhere.
Jump replied that his definition does not derail the conversation and moves it forward. He said his debates with professors and academics show that it works.
An audience member asked whether arguing against naturalism of the gaps presupposes nature came first, and whether Newton, who believed in a lawgiver, was more a philosopher looking for laws. Jump answered that there is no naturalism of the gaps, only induction, and that Newton's motives do not bear on whether his conclusions are true. Converse said the questioner meant that early scientists looked for laws because they believed in a lawgiver, citing Whitehead.
An audience member asked how one can decline to accept a position by definition yet still make absolute claims that someone else is wrong. Jump answered that definitions are arbitrary rather than absolute, so anyone may choose one, whereas gravity is objective and cannot be redefined.
An audience member asked what would follow for Christianity if God is one rather than the triune God. Converse answered that the question assumes Trinitarianism is not monotheism, and said that if the Trinity doctrine were wrong, salvation through faith in Christ would not change.
An audience member asked whether rocks, cats and shoes are atheists. Jump answered no, because on his definition one must have beliefs in order to believe there are no reasons, and Converse agreed with him.
An audience member asked Converse for his definition of a baseball bat, wooden or aluminum. Converse answered that a bat is defined by its use in playing baseball, not its material, and compared this to a radio, which is not defined by hammering nails.
An audience member asked what Jump's rejection of theism rests on and what alternatives he offers. Jump answered that the evidence and arguments for theism work equally for naturalistic pantheism, so they indicate nothing about a god. Converse replied that naturalistic pantheism does not negate God and could coexist with a God who is more than nature, and Jump replied that by definition it is not conscious, so it cannot coexist with God.
An audience member asked whether, if definitions are arbitrary, the words used to define them must also be defined. Jump answered that all words are arbitrary but most have agreed usages, and that a defined position must be accepted by those engaging with it. Converse added that this is inter-worldview critique, where one must adopt an opponent's premises before critiquing them.
An audience member asked how three spirits do not result if Yahweh and the Holy Spirit are spirit and Jesus is not spirit. Converse answered by citing Philippians 2:5-8, where Christ empties himself to take on human likeness, and John 1:14, where the word became flesh.