Understanding the Prefix

Language and Concept

Language is an interesting thing. While we use it as a tool to convey complex thoughts like how to build something or go somewhere, it seems like it fails at some level to really and fully express abstract thoughts. When we look at something, there are dozens or hundreds of little aspects about that thing which we can draw upon to identify it and its role. When that identification is complete we associate that object and particular attributes with a word or label for future reference. These labels serve us very well, almost all the time, especially when dealing with objects.

We seem to have a communication problem with the more abstract things in our lives. Ask someone to explain their concept of self or creativity, and you might be stuck for a while. And then there are the problems with expressing emotion; "Words just aren't enough", or "words cannot express...", and the like. Philosophers have been playing with this for a very long time I would think, and it almost seems like we are hindered by our own slow and clumsy tool which is the primary one we use, frustratingly enough, for getting those concepts from one person to another.

I also note the irony in trying to talk about the problems and limitations of using language to describe abstract thoughts ... by... using.... language to convey these abstract thoughts. Quite amusing.

Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism

So how does that influence the topic of religion? Well, first off, the feeling theists try to hold up as validation for their continued belief: "feeling the Holy Spirit". How can anyone even try to express what that is when our language is clearly inadequate? Usually they don't, or will say you have to experience it yourself-and that holds true for anything, really: emotional states... like love, or depression or other extreme emotions. That tangent will have to wait. The problem with language and labels as it relates to religious topics can be addressed on a basic level.

The way we try to deal with the abstract concepts in language is to construct labels. When someone mentions that a particular person is very beautiful, we don't automatically start trying to gauge the person's aesthetic qualities to the standards of the commentator-we assess that beauty with our own concept of the label "beautiful". This seems to be one major problem with religious debates, at least on an "average Joe" level with the general public. Defining theism, atheism, agnosticism, and a few other key words (like theory vs scientific theory-another tangent for another time), creates an initial rift or gap between the different debating parties because everyone is using their own concept of the words. Bridging that gap will go a long ways in avoiding misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and probably saving a number of those parties from being frustrated with the other.

So let's examine the words and some of the common arguments I've seen used with them:

Theism - belief in the existence of a god. This is a positive statement-a label that affirms acceptance or agreement with what the label is assigned to: belief in god(s).

Atheism - disbelief in god(s). This is a negative statement against the primary label of "theism" because of the prefix "a". This means that the word is a label founded on the first word to which the prefix applies.

What is a prefix? A prefix is an affix which is placed before the stem or base of a word, which then modifies that word and creates a new meaning that is derived from that first word. The prefix does not make a completely different word that has no relation to the first word because that simply isn't how our language works. Some examples: the "un-" in unkind or "pre" in prefix. In those examples, the "un" means not, and expresses the opposite of "kind" which could also be replaced with other words and labels that are associated with being unkind, like "mean". With the word "prefix", the "pre" means before the affix, which will then modify the affix.

What is the problem?

Many theists claim that those who don't believe/accept their position of belief in a god, and who then call themselves atheists, are making a claim that the theist's god doesn't exist. Why are they taking this position? Primarily, I believe this is an intellectually dishonest tactic to try and force the non-believers into the position of having to validate "their claim", or shifting the Burden of Proof, so the theist doesn't have to validate anything themselves. This is called a Strawman logical fallacy. The theist is misrepresenting (intentionally or otherwise) the position of the other person and then attacking that misrepresentation to make a distraction from the point(s).

The reason this is a misrepresentation is because of what the prefix does to the word. The prefix "a" modifies the word to make a new meaning, but it doesn't have anything to do with making a claim against the base/stem word. Here are some examples:

Symmetrical vs Asymmetrical

The prefix "a" does not imply the non-existence of symmetry, it describes the opposite, or state of being "not", of the affix: symmetrical.

Moral vs Amoral

When someone is described as amoral they are "without" morals, and not claiming that morals somehow don't exist.

There are many other examples to demonstrate this relationship, but that should do. Validation comes from the origins of the word itself; the Greek prefix "a" means "without". With regards to the base/stem word "theism", the prefix "a" modifies that word to mean "without god" or "not believing".

The word "theist" breaks down to "theo" (meaning "god") and "ist" (suffix that means "one who practices").

The word "atheist" breaks down to "a" (meaning "without") and "theist" (one who practices/follows a belief in a god or gods).

Theism/Atheism vs Gnostic/Agnostic

Another misconception about these labels is a basic understanding of what they actually represent in a position. Theism and atheism are statements of belief, not affirming knowledge of one thing or another. gnostic and agnostic are statements regarding knowledge. Most people will recognize that their religious or non-religious position is a combination of both of these statements: a gnostic theist affirms that they believe in their god because they know it is real, while an agnostic theist would say they believe the proposition of a god is true but do not claim they know it for sure. The agnostic atheist does not believe in gods, but allows for the possibility of such entities, while the gnostic atheist doesn't believe in such things and further affirms that they do not exist.

Richard Dawkins expanded this concept a little more in his book The God Delusion by making a numerical scale of seven. The first being a "Strong Theist " who knows gods exist, fourth being a "pure Agnostic", and seven being "Strong Atheist" that affirms with 100% certainty that gods do not exist.

Regardless of which position is taken, there must be a statement of opinion/affiliation, and to what degree to form a foundation for any debate or argument. For that, we have two labels for each aspect (belief and knowledge) that defines the person's identity.

Conclusion

Every time someone says atheists must validate their position, or asks how atheism can be true/proven, they are either mistaken or deliberately trying to use fallacious logic to deflect/distract the argument.

One great example is a notorious YouTube user by the name of "ShockOfGod". He has a question he always asks: "What is your proof that Atheism is accurate and correct?". This is the kind of thing that promotes intellectual dishonesty and it spreads like cancer among a people who are used to not questioning or validating anything. Belief or non-belief in something is a statement of opinion, not a statement of knowledge-which means proving an opinion is a meaningless and impossible proposition. That question needs to be addressed to the individuals who claim gods do not exist because they are actually making a positive claim that requires validation.

As with any other hot topic of "our day", which ever generation/culture/location that may be, understanding one's position is a combination of belief and knowledge statements. Once there is an understanding by all parties, the discussion can be all the more productive.