Frank's definition is self-serving, as is his speculation that most atheists deny the existence of god or gods. Saying that one does not believe something is not saying that it cannot be true. This is the entry from the online etymological dictionary, a trustworth source:
Quote:1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).
The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell. [Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]
Pointing out that the word, as it is known in English, derives from a 16th century French source is not evidence that the idea is at all new. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all offer what were essentially arguments from design, although that is not sufficient evidence that they were combating the spread of atheism--however, the fanatical insistence of the Pythagoreans on strict adherence to traditional religious forms does suggest that. Most convincing, however, is Cicero's version of the argument from design, written more than 2000 years ago.
"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"
That is from his
De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods), and it strongly suggests to me that a significant proportion of at least the literate part of Roman society were doing just precisely that--imaginng a universe as a whole devoid of purpose and intelligence. Whether or not the classical Greek world, or the Principiate Roman world had a specific term for an atheist, it seems clear to me that atheists had become at the least notorious.
For my part, of couse, i don't know if there is a god, and i don't care. Presented with the proposition, i simply say i don't believe it. That is not an assertion of certainty, it is a rejection of belief for which there is not just good evidence, but for which there is no evidence at all. My problem with Frank's approach has been brought up by many people here--the assertion that agnosticism is a superior point of view, and i re-entered this fray because that is precisely what Eorl said. I don't consider it an inferior point of view either. But as so many in this thread have pointed out, Frank's agonsticism is not an omnibus agnosticism, it is particularist--he applies is specifically to the question of god, but not to other supernaturally based superstitions.
If there is design, the myriad blunders, redundancies and vestigal, uselss survivals in evolution certainly don't suggest much intelligence involved.
