Atheism
From SkepticWiki
[edit] Definition
Atheism, broadly defined, means the lack of belief in the existence of any gods.
There is disagreement about this definition of atheism; many theists and even some atheists insist the true meaning of atheism is more narrowly defined as the affirmation that gods do not exist. This form of atheism is informally called strong atheism. The mere lack or absence of belief in gods is referred to as agnosticism or weak atheism.
[edit] Quotations
- I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.—Stephen Roberts [1]
- The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation."—Emma Goldman [2]
[edit] Discussion
There is some disagreement whether or not weak atheism should be identified with agnosticism. Agnosticism might be understood as the position that knowledge of gods is not possible, without ruling out the possibility that an agnostic might nevertheless believe in the existence or non-existence of gods, even without certain knowledge, as an act of faith[3]
Whether or not someone may be called atheist depends on the definition of "god" used. For example, if we define "God is love", somebody might be a "theist" who otherwise would be an atheist if a god is defined as a supernatural being that created the universe.
Strong atheism may be the consequence of a methodological rule of epistemology, like Occam's razor. It is also possible to reject the possibility of the existence of a god if the discussed definition of god is considered to be self-contradicting.
It sometimes happens that theists claim that atheists do not exist: instead, all people know that God exists, but some choose to love him, while others choose to hate him. This can be very annoying for atheists who genuinely don't believe in the existence of any god. At least the bible seems to allow for the possibility of the existence of atheists:
- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." —Psalms 14:1
[edit] Misconceptions
To the theist, the atheist mind seems unexplainably impervious to what is clear and obvious truth. Various misconceptions concerning atheists have arisen, possibly to attempt to explain this paradox.
[edit] Atheists hate God
Since atheists do not believe in the existence of God, it is difficult to see how it is logically possible that He can be hated. Some atheists may use language that insists that God is immoral, however such language does not imply that the critic believes God exists; usually, the qualifier "if God existed, then..." is assumed to precede statements about God's moral character, although stating that phrase explicitly would be cumbersome.
In a more general sense, some atheist might admit they hate the concept of God, as the concept may reflect negatively through its believers. For example, it would be a legitimate criticism of God as a concept if one thought that believers may be more likely to be homophobic, gullible, or willing to vote away the rights of non-believers.
One theory popular among theists is that there are “no true atheists”, and that professed atheists deny God at a conscious level while admitting and hating Him at a subconscious level. Such theories are currently without any empirical support, and are often indicative of ad hominem reasoning.
[edit] Atheists hate religion
Many atheists are angry at what they perceive to be the negative effects of the religion of others on their own lives and on society. Still others may see religion as a pointless exercise that subverts mental freedom. Still others may see religion as a beneficial aspect in the lives of those who find solace in it. In any case, it is incorrect to assume that any one of these attitudes on religion follows naturally from atheism per se.
[edit] Atheists think they know everything
One criticism of “strong” atheism is the professed knowledge or belief that God does not exist. Theists regard this position as untenable, since it would rely on negative proof (see article "Atheism is Irrational"). Even so, as a belief, it is no less valid than the belief in the existence of God. Moreover, many strong atheists would say that their belief is based on the extreme improbability of God, rather than absolute certainty.
A common theist claim is that atheists consider themselves more enlightened than believers, a group which includes historical figures of legendary intelligence; Einstein believed in God[4], so atheists must think they’re smarter than Einstein. This argument confuses differences of opinion with assumption of intellectual superiority. It is also possible that Einstein, while a great physicist, was not an exceptional philosopher or theologian. Furthermore, it is also possible that Einstein was wrong on this point as he was on many other points, including those within his expertise.
[edit] Atheism lacks a moral foundation
- See main article: "Atheism Provides No Basis for Ethics"
Nearly all religions contain a moral code that guards against the societal decay that would inevitably come from unrestrained hedonism. Very often, the “teeth” of the moral code is a system of reward and punishment, both temporal and divine. It is then argued that atheists, lacking this system, contribute to societal decay.
At the start, notice that this is not a valid logical argument against atheism, but an argument from consequences fallacy. Be that as it may, it can still be argued that atheists may have a moral code or “conscience”; however this moral code may not include non-utilitarian restrictions found in those of supposedly divine origin.
It is said that a “good” person is one that behaves morally even when there is no promise of punishment or reward; that is, when no one is looking. Yet theist religions suppose that someone is always looking, making “goodness” a moot point.
It is also worth noting that the secular law usually demands penance for violations, whereas theist religions offer “infinite mercy” and “substitutionary atonement”. If the threat of punishment were truly a deterrent, then we would expect those following the secular law to behave more morally than the religious. Studies have shown, in fact, theists and atheists in the U.S. are pretty much comparable in terms of quantifiable indicators of moral behavior.[5] A more recent study suggests that religion and moral behavior are negatively correlated. [6]
Finally, we may note that many societies and nations strongly associated with non-theist religions have not decayed into murderous thieving mobs.
There is also a possible explanation for how an atheist could have a personal conscience, independently of secular law, social pressure, or divine grace. Such a moral code is likely to have evolved as a biological instinct. Primeval humans that acted in a way we now call "immorally" did not develop the cooperative social networks necessary for survival.
Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that non-believers may possess an innate desire to behave morally:
- For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these [...] shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness... (Romans 2:14-15, KJV)
[edit] Atheists want to impose their beliefs on others
This misconception has been widely propounded in the recent American political climate. Recently controversy has erupted over the relation between government and religion, and changes of policy have ignited controversy. Many theists see the abolition of state recognition of religion as an unfair imposition of a non-religious viewpoint.
It should be noted that it has never been the goal of disestablishmentarians in America to establish atheism as an official government position. The goal is rather, to establish non-discrimination based on religious viewpoint. This distinction may be too subtle for loud political grandstanding.
On the other hand, expression by government entities of religious convictions does constitute an imposition on anyone who does not hold that conviction. Moreover, when that expression makes use of tax-funded resources, this represents a more tangible imposition to those who do not hold the view.
Also subtle is the distinction between government and private expression of religious belief. In general, atheists do not seek the removal of religion from anyone else’s private life, nor from private property. There has been no legal action to tear down religious billboards, nor to shut down religious cable TV channels. Despite the shrill rhetoric, no child has been arrested for carrying a Bible to school, and no police are removing Christmas nativity scenes from the lawns of homeowners.
[edit] Atheists feel a deep nagging emptiness in their lives
Many atheists do not feel that way in the least. To quote Dr James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA:
- I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
But it is still true that some atheists have at one time or another looked up at the night sky and wondered what it’s all there for, and what their place is. In this sense, such atheists are no different from theists. What theists find pitiful is that they believe that atheists have not found what they consider a satisfactory answer to the grand questions of life. Atheists, on the other hand, find it pitiful that the religious have accepted a fantastic or improbable explanation. If atheists were tempted to indulge in this sort of argument (which we do not recommend) they might reply that theists find a deep nagging emptiness in their lives so deep and nagging that, unlike atheists, they feel the need to abandon their reason in order to fill this vacuity with an imaginary friend.
In any case, even supposing the theist claim to be true, it would not be a valid logical argument against atheism, since it is an argument from consequences.
[edit] Atheists are willfully blind
Peter Kreeft, in page 33 of Lee Strobel's book The Case for Faith, says "God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want him can have him. Those who want to follow the clues will." The problem with this is what constitutes "just enough evidence" in the first place. The argument from design has been shown to be wrong at least since the theory of evolution became established. Other traditional arguments, such as the cosmological argument and various forms of the ontological argument, have been shown to be problematic as well. If what is at issue is Jewish or Christian theism, then the Bible itself would be part of that evidence. Yet there are severe problems with the Bible, the most obvious ones being that a plain reading of the creation [7] and Noahic flood accounts [8] show them to be inconsistent with the evidence. Even in the New Testament, there are problems such as the historical problems in the birth narratives of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The problem is not simply the mere paucity of evidence, but that much of the evidence provided is itself flawed.
The charge of willful blindness would make more sense if the evidence were thin, but correct. However, the problem is not simply that there is only "just enough evidence," but that the evidences that are present have errors.
[edit] Atheists just haven't found the right church
The idea that atheists just haven't found the right church might have merit if the doctrines of Christianity were correct and all the other "wrong churches" hid this. However, if Christianity is simply wrong, then the only thing the "right church" could offer to convert an atheist is some kind of distraction from the wrongness of Christianity, such as entertaining church services, social networks, or at worst, emotional manipulation.
[edit] There are no atheists in foxholes
Vietnam veteran Philip K. Paulson writes in the article "I Was an Atheist in a Foxhole,"
- This happened to me near a hamlet northwest of Saigon. I, along with five other men, was assigned to night duty at an outpost about a half-mile from company perimeters. We carried only our M-16 rifles, grenades, Claymore mines, and a two-way radio to protect us. That night we were surprised by an assault group of Viet Cong guerrilla fighters. Three dead young American soldiers were silhouetted by the moon's reflections inside our outpost bunker. The radio man sputtered, "Oh, Lord! Lord! Help us!" My response to him was to stop praying. I exclaimed, "To hell with God! You help us! You radio back for mortar and artillery fire support!" Fortunately, he regained his composure and radioed the forward observers for fire support to be directed at our map coordinates. Common sense dictated that staying alive was more important than wasting precious time praying. Consequently, he saved our lives.
Interestingly enough, there is a web site called http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/, which is about atheists who serve in the armed forces.
[edit] Atheism is a religion
A religion is generally understood as a worldview based on the life and teachings of a spiritual leader, including a moral code, a philosophy, holding some objects to be sacred or divine, adherence to rituals. However, atheism by itself is just a statement of whether one believes in the existence of gods, but nothing more. Atheism can be a part of a religion, but it would take a radical ad hoc understanding of religion to adequately cast atheism as a religion.
[edit] Atheists are generally Communists, Socialists, Liberals, etc.
Browsing the "Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues" forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation forums should be enough to dispel the myth that atheists are mostly from the extreme left of the political spectrum. Atheists may be conservatives and even libertarians. Nothing about atheism requires a particular political stance.
Of course, one can expect Communists to be mostly atheists because the popular Communist ideologies, such as Marxism, are atheistic. Obviously, it does not follow from this that most atheists would be communists, any more than it follows from "All fish are vertebrates" that "All vertebrates are fish."
[edit] Atheists are not patriotic
Here are some quotes from the thread Patriotism and Atheism on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board:
- I consider myself a patriot. It's natural, to me, to love and defend your homeland even if it sucks sometimes...sort of like family.—LadyShea
- Count me as a True Believer Patriot. The USA was the first country which purported to derive its powers "from the consent of the governed." ... IOW, it's the first country where it "should" be perfectly OK to be an atheist, and to recognize that atheists' conscientiously held views are equally deserving of protection with everyone else's.—maddog
- Count me as a Patriot. But don't count me as blind.
- I love this Country, because I've done a little bit of studying our roots. Our Founding Framers/Fathers were amazing and the gift they gave us these many years out is nothing short of stunning.—Puck
- I consider myself to be a patriot because I'm all gung-ho for the ideal that America represents, even if I'm a bit suspicious of the current leadership.—cjack
- I consider myself a patriotic American and atheist. That said, patriotism is not necessarily jingoism. I certainly don't hold that I have to agree with all the public policies of our current administration (and I disagree with most) simply to be considered a patriot. That's jingoism.—Kevin
[edit] Related Topics
[edit] Footnotes
[3] ^ - The expanded definition of atheism and agnosticism is adapted from Atheism.About.com - How Does Atheism Differ From Theism?
[4] ^ - It must be noted that assertions of Einstein's theism are a misconstruing of his metaphorical use of the word "God" in reference to nature; by all relevant accounts, he was an atheist.
