Does anyone else but me think that some atheists, as well as many believers, lump beliefs about religion and how/whether it’s to be confronted, together with non-belief in God under the heading “atheism”? English is rich in words to define different kinds of believers, do we need to develop new terms for counter-religionists?

In any case, after this conversation, if anyone wants to bring up Lenin, Yaroslavsky, Pol Pot et. al. I think it’s better to phrase the thought like this: If atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, atrocities have also been committed in the name of opposing religion and promoting atheism.

Yes. That’s what many of these posts have been about, and what AJ seems to object to. The matter is not about what ought to be a definition for atheism but what working definitions people give it. We can agree to disagree. So long as we give our definitions up front communicating should be possible.

Why don’t we atheists and believers just agree to never use the you-done-wrong-so-you-believe-wrong argument again. I think fair and reasoned believers like Mike C. see the fallacy in it and so do many atheists.

I think it’s time for this thread to die a natural death.

In any case, after this conversation, if anyone wants to bring up Lenin, Yaroslavsky, Pol Pot et. al. I think it’s better to phrase the thought like this: If atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, atrocities have also been committed in the name of opposing religion and promoting atheism.

Edited to add: 3 quarks for Muster Mark!

Well, you seem to have interpreted Alice’s intent differently than I did. That’s fine. If the disagreement between Alice and Humpty is about social-agreements vs. private languages (rather than “objective meaning vs. social-agreements” as I assumed), then both of them are postmodern and they’re not really disagreeing over the basic rules (i.e. it’s still about power), just over whether individuals or communities should get to be “master”.

Well — still trying to wrap my head around the concept of “postmodernism” here — if a postmodern analysis of language is non-normative, which is what I understood you to have been saying, then for them to argue over whether individuals or communities should be master might, it seems to me, require them to step outside the intellectual framework of postmodernism for the purposes of that discussion. The same would be true if they were arguing over which individual or which community should be master.

Another way of saying this is that, while postmodernism is, or may have, a praxis, I understand that it cannot have a normative praxis.

Of course, if posmodernism holds that meaning of a word truly is to be found in a social agreement, and Humpty Dumpty could point to no social agreement in which anyone other than himself used the word “glory” to mean “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you,” then Alice’s criticism could be poth postmodernist and well-founded. The “objective” meanings of a word in that case do exist, and are to be found in the use of that word in various communities. Presumably this is how descriptive lexicographers actually go about deciding how to add new words and new meanings to old words in dictionaries: when they conclude that the usage has become well-established within some community of respectable size and stability.

Note, of course, the obvious irony in trying to arrive at a “correct” definition of the word “postmodernism.” If postmodernism is correct, then it seems to me that the term itself has could have no “objective” meaning, in the sense that one could say that someone was using it incorrectly. Which means, I suppose, that it could not be incorrect to apply the term “postmodernist” to someone who held that words to have objective meanings.

Funny though, but I took Humpty to be the atheist (rather than a fundamentalist) and Alice to be the Christian. I guess maybe that’s just because I’ve encountered so many atheists whose operative definition of “Christian” seems to be “fundamentalist Christian”.

When I made up the example, I did so thinking that Humpty was the fundamentalist, until I realized that he could just as easily be the atheist.

Just to make sure I understand: It would not be a proper postmodernist response to an atheist whose operative definition of “Christian” is “fundamentalist Christian” to say, “You are mistaken.” Correct?

I’m confused Gary, was the point of your question about a postmodern view of language or was it about the meaning of the word “Christian”? I took it to be the former. I was speaking hypothetically and within the context of the Alice/Humpty story, not in regards to actual atheist or Christian or Fundamentalist definitions of Christianity.

Sorry. The form of your answer suggested that you were in fact speaking about actual atheist or Christian definitions of “Christianity.”

I was under the impression that this was all just hypothetical – just for the sake of discussion

Well, by changing Lewis Carroll’s example from “glory” to “Christianity” I was deliberately trying to make it less “just for the sake of discussion” and directed more to the point at hand.

Bear: “ROAARRR!!”

The postmodernist asked the bear what he meant by “ROAARRR!!” Was it part of a bearish metanarrative of oppression against postmodernists, and, if so, of which specific bearish metanarrative was it a part: that of the black bears, that of the brown bears, of the grizzly bears, of the Kodiak bears, or of the polar bears?

The bear withdrew in confusion.

Premodernist: “There’s a bear! Run!” (runs away)

Modernist: “Huh? Oh! You’re right! A bear! Back away slowly!” (backs away slowly)

Postmodernist: (watching the other two leave) “‘Bear?’ Now what do you two mean by ‘bear?’ For all I know ‘bear’ could mean to one of you what I would call ‘a plane ticket to Albuquerque,’ or the other might mean what I would mean by ‘why are there twigs in my cereal?’ Your terms are based on assumptions toward their definitions that cannot ever be entirely universal and so are suspect. And since we define words with other words, those meta-words are also based on suspect assumptions as are the meta-meta-words I’m using right now to describe this problem. (shouting now as the other two get far away) Furthermore all assumptions are based upon other assumptions and are expressed in words and all those meta-assumptions and their meta-meta-assumption-meta-meta words have their suspect assumptive meta-meanings ad infinitum. (pauses for a breath, cupping his hands around his mouth to shout in their direction) If by uttering ‘bear’ your intention is simply to express or to vent with no regard to any effect that the utterance may have on others then it doesn’t matter what you mean, but if your intention is to communicate a concept or experience from yourself to another, such as myself, where we will have at least a semblance of mutual agreement at least in understanding the gist of the concept or experience, then the three of us must first sit down here and establish a mutually agreed upon vocabulary of words and meta-words which are based on assumptions that are not too suspect for us to eventually achieve basic mutual understanding. We can point to things like rocks and trees, offer words for their representation, nodding and grunting in what may be vaguely felt as mutual agreement. It will take quite some time but eventually we will have built up a consensus matrix of words whose definitions we can at least just barely agree upon and finally work toward what either or both of you mean by ‘bear’….”

Bear: “ROAARRR!!” (smash, crunch, bite, bite, claw, claw, tear, rip, crunch, crunch, claw, bite, drag, drag, crunch, bite, chew, chew, chew, chew, chew, burp)

True, not explicitly. However, lurking behind Alice’s argument, in Lewis Carroll’s original version, is her well-justified belief that among no English-speaking community does the word “glory” mean “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you.” It might in Humpty’s private language, but Alice is implicitly questioning the point of a private language.

She may or may be under such a misconception. In fact, she understood that the rules for defining words are based on social agreements perfectly well, I think, in Lewis Carroll’s original version. In my revised version, that is perhaps not so clear.

Well, you seem to have interpreted Alice’s intent differently than I did. That’s fine. If the disagreement between Alice and Humpty is about social-agreements vs. private languages (rather than “objective meaning vs. social-agreements” as I assumed), then both of them are postmodern and they’re not really disagreeing over the basic rules (i.e. it’s still about power), just over whether individuals or communities should get to be “master”.

He doesn’t cut himself off conversation with that community through any lack of mutual understanding (where “understanding” is defined in the literal sense of “knowing what is meant”). Once Alice understands that, when Humpty considers “Christian” and “fundamentalist” to be synonyms, she will probably not be puzzled if he says that “Jones is not a real Christian.” It means, “Jones is not a fundamentalist.” Where Humpty might cut himself off from conversation with Alice and her community is if her community considers the word “Christian” as a prize to be fought over and finds itself offended by Humpty’s use of the word. If he insists on using the word that way, then they no longer want to talk to him, even though they understand him just fine. But there may be other other, more significant reasons why they no longer want to talk to him. On the other hand, it is at least as likely that Humpty and his community won’t want to talk to them. They are, after all, not real Christians (that is, fundamentalists).

Yes, you’re probably right. Though as more and more competing definitions arise the more difficult conversation will become.

Funny though, but I took Humpty to be the atheist (rather than a fundamentalist) and Alice to be the Christian. I guess maybe that’s just because I’ve encountered so many atheists whose operative definition of “Christian” seems to be “fundamentalist Christian”.

But whatever, this is all just hypothetical. It doesn’t really matter whether we’re talking about the definition of “Christian” or the definition of “glory”. I’m not even really sure what the point of changing it was. The principles are still the same regardless of the word in question.

Atheists and Christians are simply two different communities that may have competing definitions of what the word “Christian” means.”

How does that follow? Don’t you think that there is likely to be as much disagreement among Christians as to what the word “Christian” means as there is between atheists and Christians? Obviously there is a multiplicity ofChristian communities potentially fighting over the meaning of the word “Christian.”

I’m confused Gary, was the point of your question about a postmodern view of language or was it about the meaning of the word “Christian”? I took it to be the former. I was speaking hypothetically and within the context of the Alice/Humpty story, not in regards to actual atheist or Christian or Fundamentalist definitions of Christianity. For the purposes of philosophical discussion I don’t really care what set of words you use – you might as well have left it as “glory”, as I said, the principles are the same.

That’s why I qualified my statement by saying atheists and Christians “may” have competing definitions. But I don’t actually know or care whether they do or not, or whether Christians have more definitions among themselves. I was under the impression that this was all just hypothetical – just for the sake of discussion.

MikeClawson said, So the postmodernist (and Humpty’s) response to Alice is to question why we should privilege her definition of the word over Humpty’s. The postmodernist recognizes that this is not a question of a fixed and objective definition of the word verses Humpty’s personal re-definition. The issue is between two competing definitions. Alice needs to realize that she is essentially doing the same thing Humpty is doing. They are both trying to assert that their particular understanding of the word ought to be normative for the other. However, neither has put forth a reason why their definition is to be preferred – i.e. why they should be the “master.”

True, not explicitly. However, lurking behind Alice’s argument, in Lewis Carroll’s original version, is her well-justified belief that among no English-speaking community does the word “glory” mean “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you.” It might in Humpty’s private language, but Alice is implicitly questioning the point of a private language.

This, then is the starting point of conversation. The postmodern doesn’t say that words can just mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, but rather that individuals and communities must negotiate meaning among themselves and reach some social agreement if conversation is to continue. For instance, Alice might reply that “Well, the majority of people mean something different by the word “Christianity”.” Humpty can then decide if he wishes to submit himself to that community of people who define the word differently than him and accept their definition (i.e. let them be the master) or can maintain his own definition (and thus cut himself off from further conversation with that community).

He doesn’t cut himself off conversation with that community through any lack of mutual understanding (where “understanding” is defined in the literal sense of “knowing what is meant”). Once Alice understands that, when Humpty considers “Christian” and “fundamentalist” to be synonyms, she will probably not be puzzled if he says that “Jones is not a real Christian.” It means, “Jones is not a fundamentalist.” Where Humpty might cut himself off from conversation with Alice and her community is if her community considers the word “Christian” as a prize to be fought over and finds itself offended by Humpty’s use of the word. If he insists on using the word that way, then they no longer want to talk to him, even though they understand him just fine. But there may be other other, more significant reasons why they no longer want to talk to him. On the other hand, it is at least as likely that Humpty and his community won’t want to talk to them. They are, after all, not real Christians (that is, fundamentalists).

As for whether it’s better to have rules or no rules, that question is irrelevant to this discussion since neither Humpty nor Alice is suggesting that there are no rules. Humpty is simply saying that the rules for defining words are based on social agreements (usually determined by power relationships) while Alice is still under the misconception that the rules are based on some external, objective standard.

She may or may be under such a misconception. In fact, she understood that the rules for defining words are based on social agreements perfectly well, I think, in Lewis Carroll’s original version. In my revised version, that is perhaps not so clear.

Atheists and Christians are simply two different communities that may have competing definitions of what the word “Christian” means.

How does that follow? Don’t you think that there is likely to be as much disagreement among Christians as to what the word “Christian” means as there is between atheists and Christians? Obviously there is a multiplicity ofChristian communities potentially fighting over the meaning of the word “Christian.”

Humpty’s observation is true regardless – the meaning of the word still depends on which community’s definition you take to be normative for yourself.

But I think that the issue here is not understanding, not of knowing what is meant, but of, as you put it, power. For example, to assert that “Christian” means “fundamentalist” is to imply that anyone who is not a fundamentalist is making a mistake if he or she applies the word “Christian” to himself or herself. And this may be because because, within certain communities, the word “Christian” is regarded as laden with positive value regardless of its meaning content. They want to call themselves by that word. Whereas other communities would be horrified to be called by that word.

Sorry, no time to continue….

I am admittedly completely out of my league here, because I know very little about postmodernism. Can you give me a postmodernist critique of this exhange?

Clearly we have in this example two people discussing the use of a particular word, “Christianity.” Alice objects that Humpty is using the word incorrectly, because, she says, it doesn’t mean what he says it means. In other words, she is making a particular fact claim about “how language works.” Humpty responds that any word means whatever he wants it to mean. He is clearly making a claim about “how he uses language.”

So, two questions here:

1. Is one of these positions, Humpty’s or Alice’s, more postmodern than the other?

2. Accepting at face value Humpty’s fact claim about how he uses language being true, what would a postmodernist say about Alice’s fact claim? Is it true? Is it false? Neither true nor false? Is it irrelevant?

Humpty’s position is the more postmodern one because he is acknowledging (similar to postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault) that the meaning of language is determined by whichever individuals or social groups have the power to impose their definitions on others. This brand of postmodernism is about recognizing the degree to which power relationship within society influence the way we perceive and talk about the world.

However, you’ve slightly mischaracterized Humpty’s position when you said:

Moving on: Alice suggests, by means of a question, that Humpty is not playing the language game by the proper rules (though she does not say prcisely what those rules are, we can probably make a reasonable inference). To this Humpty responds, in effect, that the objective in a language game (any language game, or just the one he is playing here?) is, somehow, “mastery.” Perhaps he is implying that rules are therefore irrelevant, or perhaps he is implying that Alice’s rules are inappropriate for achieving his objective, but some other rules might be; I’m not sure.

Humpty is not saying that the “objective” of a language game is “mastery”. That would be a normative and prescriptive judgment, and, for the postmodernist at least, the point here is simply descriptive. Humpty is saying that the rules of the game simply are about mastery. He is describing the fact that the meaning of words is determined by those who have the power to impose their definitions on others. This is true whether we like it or not – regardless of the social or moral implications.

So the postmodernist (and Humpty’s) response to Alice is to question why we should privilege her definition of the word over Humpty’s. The postmodernist recognizes that this is not a question of a fixed and objective definition of the word verses Humpty’s personal re-definition. The issue is between two competing definitions. Alice needs to realize that she is essentially doing the same thing Humpty is doing. They are both trying to assert that their particular understanding of the word ought to be normative for the other.

However, neither has put forth a reason why their definition is to be preferred – i.e. why they should be the “master”. This, then is the starting point of conversation. The postmodern doesn’t say that words can just mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, but rather that individuals and communities must negotiate meaning among themselves and reach some social agreement if conversation is to continue. For instance, Alice might reply that “Well, the majority of people mean something different by the word “Christianity”.” Humpty can then decide if he wishes to submit himself to that community of people who define the word differently than him and accept their definition (i.e. let them be the master) or can maintain his own definition (and thus cut himself off from further conversation with that community). Notice however that Alice’s appeal in this case would not be to some “objective” meaning of the word, but to a socially agreed upon definition. Thus her appeal to Humpty would not be that he should see the light and accept the one objectively and universally correct definition, but rather that he should join the linguistic community she identifies with by using the word in same ways they do.

Am I correct in my understanding that, in the “real world” defined by this obviously unreal exhange, to be a postmodernist is to limit oneself to observing that Humpty and Alice are playing the language game by different rules (or that one is playing by rules and the other isn’t)? Are the question of whether one set of rules might be better than another, and the question of whether it is better to have rules than to have no rules, two questions that are completely out-of-scope for postmodernism?

Yes, the postmodernist would observe that they are playing by different rules. In your original exchange Alice seems to be assuming that words have fixed, objective definitions. The postmodern would say that her assumption is incorrect. They would say that Humpty’s rules are “better”. However, in this case “better” does not mean “more morally or socially desirable”, but simply “more accurate to how we observe language to actually work”. Again these rules are descriptive, not prescriptive.

As for whether it’s better to have rules or no rules, that question is irrelevant to this discussion since neither Humpty nor Alice is suggesting that there are no rules. Humpty is simply saying that the rules for defining words are based on social agreements (usually determined by power relationships) while Alice is still under the misconception that the rules are based on some external, objective standard.

Let us suppose that one of the two people in this exchange is a Christian, and that the other is an atheist. Does a postmodernist critique of the exchange require that we know which is the Christian and which is the atheist, or is that something that doesn’t matter?

It doesn’t necessarily matter. Atheists and Christians are simply two different communities that may have competing definitions of what the word “Christian” means. Humpty’s observation is true regardless – the meaning of the word still depends on which community’s definition you take to be normative for yourself. Again, this is something Alice and Humpty could work out between themselves in conversation.