d4g: Sagan chooses to define modern atheism as something it is not, (as
refusal to accept the possibility of a god or superior power), rather
than simple non-belief.
Thank you for taking a minute to respond.
I disagree that Sagan was trying to define "atheism" as having only one meaning. In fact, I think the fact that he discussed the term in a variety of ways is evidence that he understood people do not always mean the same thing when they use it or related terms.
d4g: Sagan's statement that atheism is "certainty that god does not exist",
is a misrepresentation of atheism as understood by modern definition.
According to whom?
In spite of the efforts of some individuals or groups to try and redefine what any particular word does or does not mean, it just doesn't work that way. The meaning of words are defined by popular usage. To put it simply, when it comes to defining the meaning of words: the lunatics are running the asylum and they are in control of the dictionaries.
I'll go with dictionaries that take a descriptivist (rather than a proscriptivist) view of word usage and their meaning(s). For example:
American Heritage Dictionary: Atheism - n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Merriam Webster's: Atheism - a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
You'll note that both of these dictionaries recognize a range of meanings for "atheism," meanings which include your limited definition of the word, but also more than "simple non-belief."
Failure to acknowledge that this varied usage is how this term is actually used in common speech and popular discourse by average people is to deny reality. This is how I understand Sagan's comment and probably why he clarified what he meant.
This is also why I always clarify what I mean: I do not believe in any god at all, but I also think it is irrational to positively assert that no god exists and that this can be known with any certainty.
What other people think and/or believe is obviously all over the map. They should take the time to examine the evidence, think the issues through and learn to clearly articulate their beliefs without trying to simplify it into a single word, which essentially is its own kind of dogma. Propagandists of every ilk try to simplify complex issues into short, easy-to-remember slogans.
I'm sure you've noticed that I'm against that kind of thing.
d4g: A higher power could be many things.... They are merely possibilities that can be acknowledged.
Agreed.