What is an atheist?

Question details:

My dictionary says atheism is “the theory or belief that God does not exist.” but that implies it’s OK for an atheist to believe in any supernatural thing as long as it is not God. Don’t atheists claim to believe in only the natural Universe to ensure they don’t let a ‘Divine Foot in the door’ (as Professor Richard Lewontin would say it)?

---

Answer by Mike Mendis:

The term “atheism” and its definition are both muddied by the imprecise nature of the word “God.” Thus, the dictionary definition you cite is misleading at best. Before we attempt a definition of “atheism” or say what an atheist is, we need to define what we mean by “God” or at least say how we are using the word. Are we using it to refer to the Creator God of Christianity and Judaism? Or the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle? Or the many gods in the Greek, Roman, Hindu, Aztec, Mayan, and other pantheons? Or the Deist God of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and other American Founding Fathers? Or the impersonal “God” of Einstein (and Spinoza)?

Einstein was, for all practical purposes, an atheist with respect to the existence of a personal Creator God, and yet he appears to have believed in a God of some sort, and used the word “God” quite freely, as in his famous quip, “God does not play dice with the universe.” In fact, he did specifically state that be believed in the “God” of Spinoza.

Thomas Jefferson was an atheist with respect to the Tritinitarian God of Christianity, a God who revealed himself to humanity, and he was openly accused of being an infidel and atheist during his lifetime. In a letter to his nephew, he wrote: “Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.” (See Letter to Peter Carr.) Yet he believed in a “God” of some sort, as is evident from his use of the phrase “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence. (See Declaration of Independence – Text Transcript.)

Another problem with the dictionary definition you cited is that is assumes theism (or belief in the existence of a God) as the default position. Atheism cannot, strictly speaking, be a belief, since one cannot “believe” in the non-existence of something. Atheism is the rejection of various claims made by theists (as others have already pointed out). By this definition, one can be an atheist with respect to some or all of the claims made by various theists and still be open to the existence of something that one might choose to call “God” (as Einstein did).

With regard to belief in the supernatural apart from God, we would once again have to define what we mean by “supernatural.” Clearly, phenomena that were once considered “supernatural” (thunderstorms, eclipses, and so on) have been brought within the realm of the natural with the passage of time and advances in knowledge of the natural world. By “supernatural” do we mean “that for which we do not yet have a natural explanation” or do we mean “that which is permanently beyond the reach of natural explanation”? Scientists generally hold to the view that there is nothing “supernatural” in the second sense of the word. That is, everything that occurs in the universe has a natural explanation, even if we have not arrived at the explanation just yet. By the first definition of “supernatural,” it is possible for someone (such as an “atheist”) to deny the existence of a supernatural God (a being who is, by definition, permanently beyond natural explanation) and yet accept the possibility of other seemingly “supernatural” phenomena. This does not amount to a “belief” in the non-divine supernatural. It merely admits that some observed phenomena do not yet have a natural explanation and that such phenomena are commonly considered “supernatural.”

Finally, it should be mentioned that just like theists, atheists come in all shapes and sizes (and this is quite evident on Quora, where some people style themselves as “atheist” and yet seem to be continually arguing for the other side). There are hardcore atheists and softcore atheists and a whole spectrum in between. No dictionary definition (or even an extended definition) can do justice to the term.

What is an atheist?

Why is it incorrect to say “I slept at six” in English?

Question details: I am a native English speaker, and my roommate is not, although his English is so good that I sometimes forget that. There are a few mistakes that he continually makes, one of which is saying things like “I slept at six.” to mean either “I was sleeping at six.” or “I went to sleep at six.” The best I could do when he asked me why it’s wrong was mumble something about verb aspect and think of other verbs that work that way, like “to sit”.

---

Answer by Mike Mendis:

As Lana Fisher’s answer suggests, “sleep” is a period-of-time action as opposed to a point-of-time action. While English makes a distinction between these two types of actions, many other languages do not, so your roommate may well have a first language that does not make this distinction, and he is unaware that English does. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of thing that is taught in English-as-a-Second-Language classes, and it is, furthermore, something that native-English speakers take for granted. So it is rarely made explicit anywhere, least of all in grammar books.

The explanation for why it is incorrect in English to say “I slept at six” is that the phrase “at six” refers to a point of time, whereas the action of sleeping (as it is understood in English, and also logically) cannot be accomplished at a point in time, given that it is a period-of-time action. Notice that we can say “I slept for six hours” precisely because “for six hours” signifies a period of time.

There are several other verbs that denote period-of-time action: laugh, cry, sit, stand, breathe, wait, look for, run, etc. Compare these with typically point-of-time actions such as wake (up), die, realize, give, find, enter, etc. Note how this latter group of actions is typically accomplished at a single point in time. That is to say, they cannot be sustained indefinitely, like period-of-time actions can. They do not have extensible durationality. You can prolong the action of sleeping laughing, crying, sitting, etc. as long as you wish, but you cannot do so with waking (up), dying, realizing, giving, etc. The moment you wake up, the action of waking up ceases immediately. The moment you die, the action of dying automatically comes to an end. And so on. Point-of-time actions cannot be prolonged beyond a certain natural limit of duration.

In English, we have several ways of indicating the point-of-time action that starts off a period-of-time action. Thus, “fall asleep” or “go to sleep” is the point-of-time action that initiates the period-of-time action of sleeping. Similarly, “stand up” initiates the action of standing, and “sit down” initiates the action of sitting. Note that we fall asleep (or go to sleep), stand up, and sit down at a point in time, but we sleep, stand, and sit over a period of time.

In other cases, we simply use the word “start” as the initiatory point-of-time action. This is the method used with the period-of-time actions of laughing and crying, for example. I happen to know that the Korean language does not differentiate between point-of-time actions and period-of-time actions, so native-Korean speakers routinely produce English sentences such as “When she heard the bad news, she cried” or “The moment he fell down, everyone laughed.” Of course, as native-English speakers, we know that we would most naturally say: “When she heard the bad news, she started crying” and “The moment he fell down, everyone started laughing.”

One interesting feature of the distinction between the two types of action is the kind of prepositions we can use with each type, since prepositions of time, too, have “durationality” (the property of having duration). Some prepositions, such as “at” and “on” are punctiliar (i.e., designating a point in time); others, such as “until” and “for” are periodic (i.e., designating a period of time). Since Korean does not make a distinction between the punctiliar and the periodic, native-Korean speakers are constantly confused by English prepositions of time. Thus, it is quite common to hear them say something like: “I have to finish it until six o’clock,” when what they really mean is: “I have to finish it by six o’clock.” “Until” does not work in this sentence precisely because of the mismatch of durationalities: “finish” is clearly punctiliar, whereas “until” is clearly periodic. Notice how there is no logical mismatch in the sentence: “I slept until six o’clock, since, as was pointed out earlier, “sleep” is periodic and thus fits perfectly with “until.”

I could go on, but I hope this has provided an adequate explanation.

Will declensions eventually disappear in every language?

Answer by Mike Mendis:

Declensions evolved and persisted in language because they served a useful purpose. In the case of noun and pronoun declension, the purpose was to differentiate between various “roles” among the participants in a given action (doer, receiver, possessor, beneficiary, etc.)

It is possible for languages to evolve some other method of indicating these roles. For example, English got rid of the genitive and dative declensions by using prepositions instead. In the case of the genitive declension, the preposition used is “of” and in the case of the dative declension, the preposition is “to” or “for.” However, English retained the use of the accusative case for pronouns following these and other prepositions. The accusative case is not really necessary after prepositions, but it is useful in differentiating the subject from the direct object when pronouns are used (for example, “She saw her.”). This is why the accusative pronoun declension persists in English.

In English, roles such as doer, receiver, and so on are indicated by syntax, that is, by the position of the word in the sentence. The “doer” of the action comes before the verb. The “receiver” (direct object) of the action comes directly after the verb. So the nominative and accusative case are not absolutely necessary to differentiate one from the other. If a “beneficiary” (indirect object)  is included, it comes between the verb and the “receiver” (direct object). However, in languages where word order is flexible, case is the only means of determining which noun is the subject and which is the direct object and which is the indirect object.

It is possible for declensions to disappear, as they did to some extent in English, but languages that use them to identify the various roles of the participants in a sentence will first have to develop some other unambiguous means of identifying these roles (such as strict word order and the use of prepositions, for example).

As English has shown, the declension of adjectives is unnecessary. Meaning can be conveyed clearly and unambiguously without declining adjectives. But the disappearance of adjective declension in English was a consequence of the disappearance of noun declension. In languages where adjective declension is used, its usage is tied to noun declension, and it is thus so deeply rooted in the language that unless noun declensions disappear, adjective declensions will not.

To answer the question broadly, it is possible that declensions will disappear from all languages that use them, but it is extremely unlikely. Language has reached a place, in the evolution of the human mind, where it influences the way its users think. In a sense, language has taken possession of the human mind, and bends it to its will. This may sound grossly anthropomorphic, but it is nevertheless true. Users of a given language normally think in the categories provided to them by that language. If declension is a part of that language, the mind automatically thinks in terms of declensions. We are, in effect, slaves to the languages we invented. Once we invented them, they took on a life of their own, and now they rule our lives.

Will declensions eventually disappear in every language?