What’s In A Word?
Written by Stuart Bechman   
Tuesday, 01 July 2008 00:00
Our community loves to argue over what is the "right" label to use for our worldview: Atheist, agnostic, humanist, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, Bright, Eupraxsophist, etc. If there's one thing we're good it, it's generating labels that no one else will agree to wear.
Me, I'm an agnostic on the matter of labels. Whatever label works for you, works for me. But what gets my craw is when someone tries to tell me that "my" label is wrong, and that no sane person would ever call themselves by any label except theirs.
It gets even sillier when non-theistic groups that embrace one label refuse to cooperate, collaborate or even acknowledge other non-theistic groups that embrace a different label. Or when the second group "stereotypes" the first group as being morally or intellectually inferior from them, merely because of their choice of label.
Geesh. Who needs to worry about Christian zealots when we've got plenty of home-grown ones within our own community?
Still, the language we choose to use does impact our culture; and the language that our culture uses impacts us. Every atheist should know about the Sapier-Whorf hypothesis, which arises out of the field of linguistics. It argues that the way we conceptualize and use language creates a structure of how we see the world and that those boundaries constrict us and make it almost impossible for us to see the world any other way.
The classic example given in the textbooks is the concept of time. It's been pointed out that in Oriental cultures, time is seen as recurring: What happens today has happened before, and will happen again, repeated and repeating endlessly. So it doesn't really matter what you do, you're simply playing out an eternal role that will never change. In such cultures, the idea of "progress" is inconceivable - the dramas of life remain the same, only the players change. Contrast this to the idea of time in the West as a linear progression, where the future builds on the past, and people look forward to building a better world. The difference in time is also manifest in the religions of the two culture-sets: While Western monotheism paints the ultimate goal of religion to be to live forever in Heaven with God, Eastern metaphysics paints the ultimate goal of religion is to break the recurring karmic cycles and to re-assimilate into the Spiritual Oneness of the Godhead.
Then, with Einstein and his Theory of Relativity, we have yet a third way to look at time: neither cyclical or linear, but curved and inseparably bound with space. Here again, it takes most physicists years of intense study to break the concepts of time imposed on them by their society and upbringing before reaching any real understanding of this view of time.
The Sapier-Whorf hypothesis is just as relevant to religion and atheism. Some scholars have suggested that atheism was not even possible in the West until the Protestant Reformation broke the fixed molds of religious belief and provided an opening for critical thinkers to imagine the unimaginable. Even so, the relatively slight shifting of religious beliefs that arose between the Catholics and Protestants was enough to launch wars that consumed the continent that lasted some 150 years all because some people dared to change their definitions of God and religion. Clearly, definitions are quite important, in any language. And when it comes to religion and religious ideas, nothing is as manipulated and distorted as definitions.
Linguists recognize four types of definitions in common use in most cultures: The "essential-intuitive," which avoids an actual definition and instead banks on I-know-it-when-I-see-it examples; the "lexical-historical," which basically relies on the historical use of the word; the "functional/stipulative," where the user defines his particular usage for the word regardless of how others might use it; and the "real", where the user calls on various modes of authority to persuade you that his definition and usage of the word is the "correct" definition. Which type of definition is offered for any word is critical in determining its acceptability.
Most atheists have been confronted with all four of these definitional types, especially around the word "atheist". I had a recent experience in meeting a person who was new to the non-theist community. He had adopted "Bright" as his preferred label. He also felt compelled to explain why he didn't adopt the atheist label: "I can't call myself that. It's just too negative." Not that anyone in our group had asked him. The fact that he had just insulted everyone he was talking to seemed to escape his notice.
The word atheist, in its strictest etymological sense, means "No God belief" (a=no + theos=god + -ism=belief or practice). It was a word created and adopted not by atheists but by religionists. And in doing so, they also attached many moral repugnancies to the definition, just to make sure that you got that being an atheist was a really, really bad thing. Being historical, this definition has made its way into most English dictionaries.

My Bright acquaintance above inadvertently fell back on the idea that there is a "real" definition for the word "atheist." And certainly religious people have promulgated that that myth thus allowing them to control the definition of that word and thus control the mindset of those who use it.

But my point at the start of this article is that language is fluid and definitions change all the time. Dictionaries don't create definitions; they reflect the common and uncommon useages of what people are already saying - basically capturing the "functional/stipulative" use from the culture.

So if you call yourself an atheist, you are the best authority on defining what that means. On the other hand, if you refuse or aren't aware of that authority, then you'll be at risk of accepting someone else's definition - and in the case of atheism, that means accepting a definition defined by a religious community intended to marginalize and negate your presence and participation in our society.
There's nothing "negative" about atheism unless you choose to define it that way or accept someone else's definition. No more negative than "in-dependence"; "non-violence"; "anti-slavery"; "a-symptomatic". All the in-, non-, anti- or a- prefixes indicate is that the other side defined their term before you defined yours.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with creating a whole new word. Paul Kurtz created "Eupraxsophy," Greek for "good practice and wisdom:" Paul Geisert coined "Bright" as one who is free of superstition and embraces naturalism. Anyone who was born before 1950 would likely remember a time before "cool" meant trendy; or before "gay" meant homosexual. It's your acceptance of these terms that validates their meaning, not what others want them to mean. Definitions are self-fulfilling prophecies: Use your definition enough, and it will eventually become the accepted definition.

It's ironic that my Bright acquaintance was attempting to capitalize on use of language while denying it for atheists. Nonetheless, it's a concept that all non-theists would do well to understand.

So when I say that I'm an atheist, does that mean that I have to take the position that I know that there is no God? Does it mean that there's nothing more to the label for me than a lack of belief in supernatural forces? In fact, it does not. For me the question of whether there are supernatural forces is a pretty minor and uninteresting part of my atheism. I have pushed the definitional boundaries to include in my personal definition, many of the values that arose from the Enlightenment, including democracy, human rights, and even concern for my species and my planet. Adopting the atheist label gives me authority to choose what that label means for me. Anyone who tells me I'm wrong can go jump in a lake.

What's in a word?  Whatever you want to be in it.  If you like the label "atheist," then embrace it fully.  If you don't, feel free to define yourself with a word that is more meaningful to you. But always make sure to respect those who choose "atheist" or any other related word as their label and not assist those who would diminish us by helping to perpetuate their negative connotations. a