What is Atheism?

"This is the post, That I have posted after lot many stupid questions asked by my idiotic friends"

What is Atheism?

Many of my regular readers may be surprised at the topic of this essay - perhaps it will appear much too basic and obvious to devote an entire article to. Ordinarily, I might agree with such sentiments. However, its very fundamental nature means that it does indeed require substantive treatment. Although I have answered the title question briefly and simply in a number of areas (chat room, bulletin board, in some articles), I've never devoted an entire article to examine just the nature of atheism on its own. Perhaps that has been a mistake, because I continually get people who still don't quite understand what atheism is (and is not), even though they have spent a fair amount of time here.

Now it is time to rectify that situation. I'm not sure that all atheists will entirely agree with everything here in this article, but I am confident enough of my position that I think all my points have sufficient reasonable and logical basis to warrant serious consideration. Hopefully some readers will join me in directing people with questions about atheism to this essay.

Defining Atheism:

First, we really should look at basic definitions. There are two different ways to look at the term "atheism" - a narrow way and a broader way which encompasses the former.

The word atheism is a derivation of the word theism. Theism is not, as is sometimes thought, "religion." Theism is the belief in a god (monotheism) or multiple gods (polytheism) - a belief which is normally a part of a religion, but need not be. By adding the prefix "a", which means "not; without," we get atheism - and hence "not/without belief in gods." Why and how one might be without belief in gods are not even slightly relevant.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made in this - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem.

Theists & Atheism:

Possibly theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate. Theists also tend to make the serious error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god - and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what the is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

A person may indeed not believe in gods because they think gods cannot possibly exist - but that does not even begin to exhaust the possible reasons why a person does not believe. A god may not be believed in because it hasn't been heard of, because the concept hasn't been sufficiently explained, because what has been explained is incoherent, etc.

You'll often find theists telling you that you're an atheist because you deny the existence of God. Now we can start to see just how many errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be known. The theist cannot simply assume that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term: "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never be able to seriously critique their concepts.

Agnosticism:

So, what about agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism represents an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

If a person cannot claim to know, or know for sure, if any gods exist, then they may properly use the term "agnostic" to describe themselves. Some agnostics limit themselves to saying that they do not or cannot know if any gods exist, some go further and maintain that no human can possibly know if any gods exist.

Although we now have an idea of what this person knows or thinks she knows, we don't actually know what she believes. It is a simple fact that some people don't believe that they know, but believe anyway, and that some people cannot claim to know, and decide that that is reason enough to not bother believing. Thus agnosticism is not an alternative, "third way" going between atheism and theism. It is instead a separate issue compatible with both.

Agnosticism or Atheism?

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic also reject the label of atheist, and there are a number of reasons for this. The most common reason for this is probably social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas "agnostic" appears more respectable. Due to misunderstandings about atheism, atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure.

Not only is that a mistake, since atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure, but it rests upon a vicious double-standard. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists who are making claims that gods exist without being open to the possibility that there aren't any gods. If theism can be open-minded, then so can atheism. If atheism must be closed-minded, then so must theism. Theists who prefer agnosticism to atheism because of perceived closed-mindedness are thus hypocrites.

Another common reason for adopting the term agnosticism and rejecting the term atheism seems to have to do with what a person considers most important. A person may readily admit that the term "atheist" applies to them, but reject active use of it because they consider the lack of knowledge to be more significant than the lack of belief. However, I have yet to find anyone who applies this principle consistently and evenly. How many such agnostics consider it more significant that they lack knowledge about the existence of unicorns than that they lack belief in unicorns? How many such agnostics, when asked if they believe in the existence of unicorns, simply say "I don't know?"

The only reason I can think of for treating the concept of "god" in a special manner and unlike anything else in their lives is some variation on Pascal's Wager. They are perhaps unsure enough about whether or not they should believe in any gods that maybe they are attempting to avoid admitting to any decision in belief. But all the basic objections to Pascal's Wager come into play here - for example, are they equally agnostic about all possible gods, And if not, why not?

Agnosticism and Atheism:

So, agnosticism is not a third option between theism and atheism, because it involves a separate subject matter entirely. It is quite rare for anyone to have absolute, certain knowledge about anything - but does that stop us from either believing or not believing? No, not really.

As a matter of fact, a majority of people who consider themselves either atheist or theist would also be justified in calling themselves agnostics. It is not at all uncommon, for example, for a theist to be adamant in their belief, but also be adamant in the fact their belief is based on faith and not on having absolute, incontrovertible knowledge. Moreover, some degree of agnosticism is evident in every theist who considers their god to be "unfathomable" or to "work in mysterious ways." This all reflects a fundamental lack of knowledge on the part of the believer with regards to the nature of what they claim to believe in.

As for my own situation, I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist. I am an agnostic because I simply cannot claim to know for sure whether or not any critter exists which might warrant the label "god." This is for strictly philosophical and logical reasons - after all, I also cannot claim to know for sure that no unicorns or fairies exist for the exact same reasons. However, I do not particularly focus on this.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in any gods. Some gods I've not heard of, so cannot believe in. Some gods I've heard of, but do not know enough about to believe in. Some gods I've heard more about, but find so totally incoherent that rational belief is impossible. And finally, there are some gods which I have heard plenty about, and have found it much more likely that they do not exist than that they do exist, and so explicitly reject.

Misconceptions:

People stop believing in God so that they can do whatever they want.

This misconception stems from the idea that atheists not only cannot be moral without god, but in fact do not want to be moral. Theistic, particularly Christian, attitudes towards atheists can often be summarized by the oft-quoted verse Psalm 14:1

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.

Although quotations rarely go so far as to include the second sentence, no atheist should ever fail to keep in mind that it is always there, hanging unspoken but nevertheless assumed, in the background. Despite numerous attempts, no theist has ever conclusively demonstrated that belief in their god is required for morality - and in fact there are many good reasons to think that such a claim is simply false. Perhaps there are atheists who rejected belief in gods in order to avoid morality - but I've never encountered any, and the many atheists I have known have had quite different reasons for their atheism.

Atheists hate God:

By now, we should the problems with this claim - all go back to misunderstanding what atheism is. Atheists either do not believe in any gods or deny that gods exist - and you cannot really hate something which doesn't exist. Moreover, we find here the theist focusing on just their god - even if it were true that an atheist hated the description of their particular god, it doesn't follow that the atheist hates all other god-concepts.

Atheists worship Satan:

Again, we find a theist thinking that for some reason that only their god is relevant to the atheist - and if the atheist does not believe in their god, then they must worship the antithesis of their god, Satan. But the fact of the matter is, atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in the god's supernatural competitor, either.

Atheist rely as much on faith as theists do:

It isn't uncommon for theists to assume that whatever is true of themselves must also be true of everyone else - so, instead of reconsidering admittedly irrational beliefs, they do whatever they can to force those who reject that irrationality into the same mold.

First, this claim rests upon an equivocation of the term "faith." Without going too deeply into the nature of faith, it should be noted that the only sort of "faith" common among atheists is that of simply confidence based upon and limited by repeatable, objective experiences. Religious faith in the existence of a god is a very different animal - something Paul clearly recognized when he defined faith as the "...assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebr. 11:1)

Second, this claim will at times lead the theist to try and argue from a position of pure solipsism - an extreme and irrational form of skepticism whereby everything is denied as being a viable and rational belief. The point seems to be to demonstrate that some sort of "faith" is necessary, and if so, why not faith in the existence of their god? The problems with this are too numerous to explain in this article, but we can make note of the fact that at the very least such radical solipsism also cannot justify belief in the person attempting to defend that position - and if they do not exist, why bother listening to them?

Everyone worships something, so atheists must have some god:

This complaint runs along lines very similar to the previous, and sometimes this idea is also expressed by claiming that "atheism is a religion." Since they cannot imagine living their life without worshipping their god, they also cannot imagine atheists living without worshipping something, like money or humanity.

One method of doing this is to redefine the concept of "worship" with very broad and ambiguous strokes, calling it a person's "ultimate concern" or "whatever is most important in your life." Such tactics truly reveal that a person is grasping for straws - just because you can identify one most important thing in your life doesn't meant that you actually "worship" it. In fact, attempting to claim so ultimately does a grave injustice to the genuine worship which occurs in religion.

Atheism is due to bad childhood experiences with false religions:

It is certainly true that many atheists have had poor experiences with religion, often in childhood. It is also true that such experiences have caused people to reconsider how they feel about religion and, in some cases, to finally reject religion and even belief in gods. However, this is by far not the only reason why people are atheists. Some, for example, never believed in any gods and never belonged to any religion.

All atheists believe in "X.":

Many theists still try to pigeonhole atheists into a single philosophical straight-jacket - be it humanism, communism, nihilism, objectivism, or something else. By claiming to have identified this other belief system necessary to atheism, they can then proceed to attack that belief system and pretend to have refuted atheism without ever actually addressing atheism itself. It is certainly true that atheism can be a part of the aforementioned worldviews, among many others, but it is not true that atheism necessitates any of them.

Not only does atheism fail to imply an agreement with any one belief system, it also fails to imply agreement with any other atheists. My neighbor might also be an atheist, but we might disagree on nearly every single philosophical and social issue imaginable. Just because we agree on not believing in magic elves, unicorns or gods does not announce to the world that we agree on anything else.

Now that we know a bit more about what atheism is and is not, perhaps discussions on this site will have a chance of being more productive.