A Hexagon of Opposition for the Theism/Atheism Debate
Burgess-Jackson has recently suggested that (the logical structure underlying) the debate between theism and atheism can be represented by means of a classical square of opposition. However, in light of the important role that the position of agnosticism plays in Burgess-Jackson’s analysis, it is quite surprising that this position is not represented in the proposed square of opposition. I therefore argue that the square of opposition should be extended to a slightly larger, more complex Aristotelian diagram, viz., a hexagon of opposition. Since this hexagon does represent the position of agnosticism (and its Aristotelian relations to the original positions of theism and atheism that are already present in the square), it arguably yields a more helpful representation of (Burgess-Jackson’s analysis of) the theism/atheism debate (e.g., concerning the distinction between positive atheism and negative atheism). It would be naïve to presume that Aristotelian diagrams can, by themselves, lead to a comprehensive solution of debates as intricate as that between theism and atheism. Nevertheless, this paper aims to show that these diagrams — especially if they are chosen carefully — have an important methodological role to play, by systematically organizing and clarifying the debate.
KeywordsTheism Atheism Agnosticism Square of opposition Hexagon of opposition Aristotelian diagram
- Bartsch, R. (1973). Negative transportation’ gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte, 27, 1–7.Google Scholar
- Blanché, R. (1966). Structures intellectuelles. Essai sur l’organisation systématique des concepts. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
- Bosanquet, B. (1888). Logic. Volume I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Boyd, G. A., Belt, T., & Rhoda, A. (2008). The hexagon of opposition: thinking outside the Aristotelian box. Unpublished manuscript; available online at http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-hexagon-essay/ (Accessed on 30 October 2017).
- Burgess-Jackson, K. (forthcoming). Rethinking the presumption of atheism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-017-9637-y, 2017.
- Demey, L. (forthcoming). Aristotelian diagrams in the debate on future contingents. A methodological reflection on Hess’s open future square of opposition. Sophia https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-017-0632-7, 2018.
- Demey, L., & Smessaert, H. (forthcoming). Combinatorial bitstring semantics for arbitrary logical fragments. Journal of Philosophical Logic. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9430-5, 2018.
- Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Horn, L. R. (2012). Histoire d’*O: Lexical pragmatics and the geometry of opposition. In J.-Y. Béziau & G. Payette (Eds.), The square of opposition: A general framework for cognition (pp. 383–416). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
- Jaspers, D., & Seuren, P. A. M. (2014). The square of opposition in Catholic hands: A chapter in the history of 20th-century logic. Logique et Analyse, 59, 1–35.Google Scholar
- Martin Bac, J. (2010). Perfect will theology: Divine Agency in Reformed Scholasticism as against Suárez, Episcopius, Descartes, and Spinoza. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
- Parsons, T. (2017). The traditional square of opposition. In: Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2017 edition.Google Scholar
- Sesmat, A. (1951). Logique II. Les raisonnements. La syllogistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar