| Subject: Word up |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/ 3/02 8:37pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Word usage." on 03/ 3/02 11:37am
>>One example I have considered recently of this
>>religious permeation is our language. If someone
>>doesn't believe in God, he has a name: "atheist".
>>But if someone doesn't believe in the god I made up,
>>Baboo, does he have a certain name? No. He just
>>doesn't believe in something that I have no evidence
>>at all for. Yet our society has such far-reaching
>>religious roots, everything is measured in relation to
>>people who _don't_ believe in God. "Atheist".
>>"Non-Christian". These words are relative... they
>>assume that believers in God are right and others are
>>wrong.
>
>None of these terms assume that Christianity is
>correct, nor do the terms assume that any deity really
>exists.
I do not mean to say the word "atheist" has anything to do with _Christianity_, but it demonstrates the religious nature of our society. We have a name for people who _don't_ believe in God, which in some sense makes a belief in God seem like the default. Why do we have to call people _anything_? If someone believes that the earth is round, I don't have a name for them. It is just the most natural thing to think. If someone _challenges_ this belief, I might think of a name for them, to simplify my conversations about them or with them. For example, I might call them a "flat-earthist" or something similar. If a person believes that the earth revolves around the Sun, I need no name for him. In other words, the belief which goes with the mainstream is usually the benchmark, and deviations usually have names attached to them.
In that light, the word "atheist," since it basically means, "Someone who does _not_ believe in God," is funny. It makes sense to me to begin with the idea that there isn't some invisible being in the sky, and work outward from there. A person who just looks at the world and doesn't make any assertions about a divine being would be the default. From there, we could use the word "theist" to describe someone who _does_ believe in a god. But we do not need the word "atheist," because it should be assumed that it is natural not to believe in something until one is offered proof.
My main point in all this is to say that an "atheist" is not making an assertion. He is just a person who looks at the world and says, "Interesting. I wonder how all this came about." Now, I think if a person holds the belief that a god _could not_ exist and _does not_ exist, we might use the word "atheist." But too often, this word is used to describe people who just don't see any reason to believe in god. They don't necessarily rule out the existence of a god--they just don't see any evidence that makes them think one might exist.
>Not believing in the Christian
>deity does not necessarily make one an atheist (e.g.
>deists), and I don’t think I’ve seen usages to any
>significant extent that indicate the contrary.
I certainly agree. I am speaking of anyone who has any belief in a god.
> I
>personally have used the term “non-Christian” for
>practicality, merely to denote one who was not an
>adherent of the Christian faith (curious, how many
>others besides me have you seen use that term?).
I have seen many, many Christians use the term.
>Instead of, “A question for the non-Christians,”
>suppose I put, “A question for the atheists,
>agnostics, Buddhists, Confucianists, Sikhists,
>Animists, Satanists…” The latter seems rather verbose
>to me.
Given: I can understand the use of the word "non-Christian" in certain contexts where Christianity is the thing being debated. What I resent is the common use of the word by Christians, implying that to them, the only thing that matters is whether you have their belief or you don't. You're either a Christian or a non-Christian. Kind of like if I said there are two kinds of music: jazz and non-jazz. This is not a fair sampling of the many kinds of music, and I have often seen these terms used to make all the world religions and even atheists and agnostics belong to one group: non-Christians.
>Perhaps you are reading into these terms a little too
>much if you think these words automatically make such
>assumptions. But if you wish, I can use “those who
>are not Christians” instead of “non-Christians,” but I
>prefer the latter because it is more concise.
No, you have missed my point. If the issue at hand is Christianity, this is fine. But if the discussion is about world religions, you should just name whatever religion you want to talk about. Or if you are talking to someone whose belief you know, call them an "atheist" or "agnostic" or "Hindu" or whatever you know they are instead of a "non-Christian," which makes your religion the reference point.
There are times when the term "non-Christian" can be useful. But I think it is overused, and is often used in such a way as to assume that Christianity is right and everything else is wrong.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 