Jump to content

Atheism

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rbmoore (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 22 September 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Atheist" redirects here. For the band, see Atheist (band).

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. It should not be assumed that atheists will be in agreement on anything other than their mutual absence of theism.


Historical background of atheism

In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, along with the spread of rationalism and humanism, atheism had become common, particularly among scientists (see international survey of contemporary atheism).

Etymology

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god") meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BCE, expressing total lack of relations with the gods, that is, "denying the gods, godless, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs: "atheism". Cicero transcribed atheos into Latin. The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other.

A.B. Drachmann (1922) notes:

Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotes; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed. (p.5)

In English, the term atheism is the result of the adoption of the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist, in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves" actually predates atheism, being first attested in about 1571 (there is a 1568 use of the term Italian atheoi). Atheist in the sense of practical godlessness is first attested in 1577. The French word is derived from athée, "godless, atheist", which in turn is from the Greek atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, followed by theism and deism in 1678 and 1682, respectively. Due to the influence of atheism, deism and theism exchanged meanings around 1700. Deism was originally used with a meaning comparable to today's theism, and vice-versa.

The Oxford English Dictionary also records an earlier irregular formation, atheonism, dated from about 1534. The later and now obsolete words athean and atheal are dated to 1611 and 1612 respectively.

God as a philosophical category

In English, believers usually refer to the monotheistic Abrahamic god as "God". In many philosophical and/or esoteric interpretations of monotheism or henotheism, God is not thought of as a supernatural being — as a deity or god; rather, God becomes a philosophical category: the All, the One, the Ultimate, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, the Divine Ground, Being or Existence itself, etc. For example, such views are typical of pantheism, panentheism, and religious monism. Attributing anthropomorphic characteristics to God may be regarded as idolatry, blasphemy, or symbolism by some. Some theists may not believe in, or may even deny, the existence of deities as supernatural beings, while maintaining a belief in god as so conceived. For example, the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich described God as the 'ground of Being', the 'power of Being', or as 'Being itself', and caused controversy by making the statement "God does not exist", resulting in him occasionally being labelled an atheist. Nevertheless, for Tillich, God is not 'a' being that exists among other beings, but is Being itself. For him, God does not 'exist'; God is the basis of Being, the metaphysical power by which Being triumphs over non-Being. Some atheists who deny the existence of deities as supernatural beings would also deny this and similar conceptions of God, or consider them incomprehensible.


Defining atheism

Many minds have been exercised by the problem of how best to characterise atheism: much of the literature on the subject is confused or confusing.

There are discrepancies in the use of terminology between proponents and opponents of atheism; and divergent definitions among proponents. In particular, the alt.atheism Usenet discussion group was, from 1990, the forum for the popularisation of new terms - weak atheism and strong atheism - which do not seem to appear in the academic literature (first use on alt.atheism). However, the distinctions (between absence and rejection or "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god") they are designed to label are by no means new to philosophy or theology. In academic philosophy the equivalent terms are negative atheism and positive atheism, apparently coined by Antony Flew in 1972 (Jacques Maritain (1953, Chapter 8, p.104) used the phrases in a similar but strictly Catholic apologist context as early as 1949 [1]).

Practical and speculative atheism in religious apologetics

The first attempts to define or develop a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. These attempts were expressed in terminologies and in contexts which, unsurprisingly, reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers. Nevertheless a diversity of atheist opinion has been recognised at least since Plato; common distinctions were established between practical atheism and speculative or contemplative atheism. Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance, and infidelity. Practical atheists behaved as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist. Maritain's typology of atheism (1953, Chapter 8), proved influential in Catholic circles (it was followed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, see Reid (1967)). He identified, in addition to practical atheism, pseudo-atheism and absolute atheism (and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Flew). For an atheist critique of Maritain, see Smith (1979, Chapter 1, Section 5) [2].

According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne (1961, p.10), "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law."

According to Karen Armstrong (1999):

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic... In his tract Atheism Closed and Open Anatomized (1634), John Wingfield claimed: "the hypocrite is an Atheist; the loose wicked man is an open Atheist; the secure, bold and proud transgressor is an Atheist: he that will not be taught or reformed is an Atheist". For the Welsh poet William Vaughan (1577 [sic]-1641), who helped in the colonisation of Newfoundland, those who raised rents or enclosed commons were obvious atheists. The English dramatist Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) proclaimed that the ambitious, the greedy, the gluttons, the vainglorious and prostitutes were all atheists. The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist. (p.331-332)

As for serious speculative atheism, on the other hand, its existence was denied. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, or conceptualised as hatred of God, or a fight against God. Which is why Borne finds it necessary to say, "to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only 'practical atheists' who through pride or idleness disregard the divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question." (p.18).

For more on repressive definitions of atheism see Berman (1982), Berman (1983), and Berman (1990).

Martin (1990, p.465-466) suggests that practical atheism would be better described as alienated theism.

When in the course of the history of ideas the denial of the existence of "speculative" atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless repressed by defining it very narrowly, casting it as unacceptably dogmatic or otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of alternative terms like secularist, agnostic, or bright is that atheism still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism (Godless is still used as an abusive epithet).

Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, the originators of the term Bright, made this explicit in an essay published in 2003:

Our personal frustration regarding labels reached culmination last fall when we were invited to join a march on Washington as "Godless Americans." The causes of the march were worthy, and the march itself well planned and conducted. However, to unite for common interests under a disparaging term like godless (it also means "wicked") seemed ludicrous! Why accept and utilize the very derogatory language that so clearly hampers our own capacity to play a positive and contributing role in our communities and in the nation and world? [3]

Gaskin (1989) abandoned the term atheism in favour of unbelief, citing "the pejorative associations of the term, its vagueness, and later the tendency of religious apologists to define atheism so that no one could be an atheist..." (p.4)

Atheism broadly understood

Among modern atheists, the view that atheism means "without (or, polemically, "free of") theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency. This very broad definition is justified by reference to etymology as well as consistent usage of the word by atheists, and has the polemical advantage of correcting the repressive tendency to define atheism out of existence. But it has not gone unchallenged. Although atheism has historically been construed very broadly, so as to cover 'wickedness', impiety, heresy, and the religious denial of other religions, as well as pantheism and similar beliefs, it is not as common for it to be understood as including everything that is not explicitly theistic. It is often ambiguous whether a writer's definition of atheism as an 'absence' or 'lack' of theistic belief is in fact intended to mean "not theistic" in the widest possible sense, or just refers to particular forms of the rejection of theism (see below).

The Oxford English Dictionary records the word atheous. It has an obsolete meaning synonymous with atheism or impiety as more narrowly understood, but can also mean "Not dealing with the existence of a God. (Intended to convey a purely privative sense, as distinguished from the negative atheistic.)". This 1880 coinage captures some of what is intended by the broad definition of atheism, though it is hard to sustain the claim that the philosophical rejection of theism can be characterised in such terms.

Two atheist writers who are clear in defining atheism so widely that uninformed children are counted as atheists are d'Holbach (1772) ("All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." [4]), and George H. Smith (1979). According to Smith:

the man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist. (p.14) [5]

It is therefore a position with a history of over 230 years.

An atheist writer who explicitly disagrees with such a broad definition is Ernest Nagel (1965):

atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has recieved no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. (p.460-461)

Instead, Nagel distinguishes between different types of atheism according to the grounds of their rejection of theism. The difference between Nagel on the one hand and d'Holbach and Smith on the other can be attributed (see Smith (1990, Chapter 3, p.51-60 [6]), for example, but also alluded to by Everitt - see below) to the different concerns of professional philosophers and lay proponents of atheism.

Definitions of atheism in philosophy

Atheism in its very broadest sense, then, has been of limited interest to philosophers.

As Everitt (2004) explains, professional philosophers are more interested in the grounds for giving or withholding assent to propositions:

We need to distinguish between a biographical or sociological enquiry into why some people have believed or disbelieved in God, and an epistemological enquiry into whether there are any good reasons for either belief or unbelief... We are interested in the question of what good reasons there are for or against God's existence, and no light is thrown on that question by discovering people who hold their beliefs without having good reasons for them. (p.10)

In philosophy, atheism is usually defined along the lines of "rejection of theistic belief". This is often misunderstood to mean only the view that there is no God, but it is conventional to distinguish between two main types of atheism in this sense (writers differ in their characterisation of this distinction, and in the labels they use for these positions).

  • Weak atheism, sometimes called implicit atheism, negative atheism, or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A weak atheist may consider the nonexistence of deities likely, on the basis that there is insufficient evidence. Theists claim that a single deity and/or group of deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Because of a lack of consideration, or because the arguments and evidence provided by both sides are equally unpersuasive, some weak atheists are without opinion regarding the existence of deities. Having considered the evidence for and against the existence of deities, others may doubt the existence of deities while not asserting that deities do not exist. They may feel that it is impossible to prove a negative, or that the strong atheist has not been relieved of the burden of proof, which is also required of the theist, or that faith is required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. Agnosticism is separate from implicit atheism, though many implicit atheist may be agnostic. Agnosticism is the epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknowable. Agnostic theism regards understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable and continuing to hold theistic beliefs. Similarly, agnostic atheism concerns understanding that the existence of deities is unprovable while being without theistic beliefs. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.
  • Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism and positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist. This may be based on the view that there is insufficient evidence or grounds to justify belief in deities, on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible, or on the assertion that any belief in the supernatural is not rationally justifiable. It may also be based on an appreciation of the psychological characteristics of faith and belief (see True-believer syndrome, for example), and of a subsequent critical attitude towards any system that encourages faith, belief, and acceptance, rather than critical thinking, from its adherents.

Under the broader definition of atheism (that is, the "condition of being without theistic beliefs"), which is characteristic of "weak atheism", nonbelief and/or disbelief atheists, agnostics, and theists use a narrower definition of atheism, according to which it the "disbelief in God or gods". Adherents of this definition would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (that is, "implicit atheism") as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as "skeptic" or "agnostic" for this position. It is largely a semantic issue, however, as a theist can also be an agnostic, as well as a skeptic. A person who is not specifically a theist must (ipso facto) fit one or another definition of "atheist."

Antitheism

Antitheism (sometimes hyphenated) has had a range of applications. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. The Oxford definition may fail to make it clear that an antitheist is categorically opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.

The word allows a useful distinction to be made between the philosophical rejection of religion and/or theism, and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs. It may be adopted as a label by those who take the view that religion is destructive. For example, in Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001), Christopher Hitchens writes that "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful." [7]

The Chambers Dictionary defines antitheism in three different ways: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; denial of the existence of a God; opposition to God." The first is closest to Hitchens' usage. The second is synonymous with atheism. The third need not be atheistic at all (Satan might be regarded an antitheist). Despite this support, the use of the word in Hitchens' sense may be regarded as a neologism by those who rely on other authorities which hold that it is more or less synonymous with atheism. For example, according to Dictionary.Com Webster's defines an antitheist as a "disbeliever in the existence of God" [8].

An alternative term for Hitchens' position is militant atheism (see Baggini, 2003 p.101).

Earlier definitions of antitheism include that of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1953), for whom it is "an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God" (p.104), and that of Robert Flint (1877), Professor of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh.

Flint's Baird Lecture for 1877 was entitled Anti-Theistic Theories. He used it as a very general umbrella term for all opposition to theism, which he defined as the "belief that the heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent Being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what He has created." (p.1). He wrote:

In dealing with theories which have nothing in common except that they are antagonistic to theism, it is necessary to have a general term to designate them. Anti-theism appears to be the appropriate word. It is, of course, much more comprehensive in meaning than the term atheism. It applies to all systems which are opposed to theism. It includes, therefore, atheism... But short of atheism there are anti-theistic theories. Polytheism is not atheism, for it does not deny that there is a Deity; but it is anti-theistic, since it denies that there is only one. Pantheism is not atheism, for it admits that there is a God; but it is anti-theism, for it denies that God is a being distinct from creation and possessed of such attributes as wisdom, and holiness, and love. Every theory which refuses to ascribe to God an attribute which is essential to a worthy conception of His character is anti-theistic. Only those theories which refuse to acknowledge that there is evidence even for the existence of a God are atheistic. (p.2-3)

But Flint also acknowledges that antitheism has been understood differently to his own definition. In particular he notes it has been used for a subdivision of atheism, descriptive of the view that theism has been disproven, rather than as a more general term as Flint prefers. He rejects non-theistic as an alternative, "not merely because of its hybrid origin and character, but also because it is far too comprehensive. Theories of physical and mental science are non-theistic, even when in no degree, directly or indirectly, antagonistic to theism." (p.444-445).

Yet another definition of antitheism was coined by Christopher New, in a thought experiment published in 1993. In his article he imagines what arguments for the existence of an evil God would look like: "Antitheists, like theists, would have believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creator; but whereas theists in fact believe that the supreme being is also perfectly good, antitheists would have believed that he was perfectly evil." (p.36)

Christian atheism

A famous but idiosyncratic concept of atheism is that of Thomas Altizer. His book The Gospel of Christian Atheism (1967) proclaims the highly unusual view that God has literally died, or self-annihilated. According to Altizer, this is nevertheless "a Christian confession of faith" (p.102). Making clear the difference between his position and that of both Nietzsche's notion of the death of God and the stance of theological non-realists, Altizer says:

To confess the death of God is to speak of an actual and real event, not perhaps an event occurring in a single moment of time or history, but notwithstanding this reservation an event that has actually happened both in a cosmic and in a historical sense.(p.103)

Few others would consider this to be an atheist position at all. For further discussion see Lyas (1970).

History

Main article: History of atheism

Although the actual term "atheism" originated in 16th Century France, atheistic ideas appeared earlier than Classical Antiquity. Epicurus proposed theories that can be classified as atheistic, such as a lack of belief in an afterlife, but he remained ambiguous concerning the actual existence of deities. Before him, Socrates was sentenced to death on the grounds that he was an atheist, despite expressing belief in several forms of divinity, as recorded in Plato's Apology. This criminal connotation attached to atheistic ideas (heresy) would remain, at varying levels of severity, until the Renaissance, when criticism of the Church became more popular and accepted. In the 20th Century, atheism became a staple of the various Communist regimes, and consequently was viewed negatively in the United States since it became synonymous with being unpatriotic during the Cold War.

International survey of contemporary atheism

Atheism is common in Western Europe, in former or present communist states, Australia, Canada, and, to a lesser extent, the United States. It is particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the twentieth century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage, of 60.7% (this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences). Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%. [9] (See also The relationship between religion and science).

Atheism in the United Kingdom

In early 2004, it was announced that atheism would be taught during religious education classes in Britain. [10] A spokesman for the 'Qualifications and Curriculum Authority' stated: "There are many children in England who have no religious affiliation and their beliefs and ideas, whatever they are, should be taken very seriously." There is also considerable debate in the U.K. on the status of faith-based schools, which use religious as well as academic selection criteria. [11]

Atheism in the United States

In the United States, disapproval of atheists is common. For example, according to motherjones.com, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president. [12] Notwithstanding such attitudes, atheists are the second most common "religion" in the nation, after Christianity. Atheists are also legally protected from discrimination in the United States. They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state. American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers, as well as prohibiting the establishment of any state religion. Atheists often sum up the legal situation with the phrase: "Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion". [13]

In Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet[14], Justice Souter wrote in the opinion for the Court that: "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." [15] Everson v. Board of Education established that "neither a state nor the Federal Government can... pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another". This applies the Establishment Clause to the states as well as the federal government. [16] However, several state constitutions make the protection of persons from religious discrimination conditional on their acknowledgement of the existence of a deity, apparently making freedom of religion in those states inapplicable to atheists; however these state constitutional clauses have not been tested. Additionally, some state constitutions (namely, Arkansas and South Carolina) disallow atheists to hold public office, although most agree that, if challenged, these requirements would be ruled unconstitutional under Article Six of the United States Constitution which bans such qualifications. Civil rights cases are typically brought in federal courts; so such state provisions are mainly of symbolic importance.

In the Newdow case, after a father challenged the phrase "under God" in the United States Pledge of Allegiance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the phrase unconstitutional. Although the decision was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal, there was the prospect that the pledge would cease to be legally usable without modification in schools in the western United States, over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This resulted in political furor, and both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning the decision, nearly unanimously. A very large group consisting of almost the entire Senate and House was televised standing on the steps of Congress, hands over hearts, swearing the pledge and shouting out "under God". The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the decision, ruling that Michael Newdow did not have standing to bring his case, thus disposing of the case without ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.

Statistics

As some governments have strongly promoted atheism, whilst others have strongly condemned it, atheism may be either over-reported or under-reported for different countries. There is a great deal of room for debate as to the accuracy of any method of measurement, as the opportunity for misreporting (intentionally or not) a belief system without an organized structure is high. Also, many surveys on religious identification ask people to identify themselves as "agnostics" or "atheists", which is potentially confusing, since these terms are not uniformly interpreted, with many people identifying themselves as both.

The following surveys are in chronological order, but as they are different studies with different methodologies it would be inaccurate to infer trends on the prevalence of atheism from them:

  • A 1995 survey [17] attributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica indicates that non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.
  • the 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million US Americans (14.1%) self-describe as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism.
  • In the 2001 Australian Census [18] 15.5% of respondents ticked 'no religion' and a further 11.7% either did not state their religion or were deemed to have described it inadequately (there was a popular and successful campaign at the time to have people describe themselves as Jedi).
  • A 2002 survey by Adherents.com [20] estimates the proportion of the world's people who are "secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists" as about 14%.
  • In a 2003 poll in France, 54% of those polled identified themselves as "faithful", 33% as atheist, 14% as agnostic, and 26% as "indifferent". [21]
  • A 2004 survey by the BBC [22] in 10 countries showed the proportion of the population "who don't believe in God nor in a higher power" varying between 0% and 30%, with an average close to 10% in the countries surveyed. About 8% of the respondents stated specifically that they consider themselves to be atheists.
  • A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Factbook [23] estimates about 12.5% of the world's population are non-religious, and about 2.4% are atheists.
  • A 2004 survey by the Pew Research Center [24] showed that in the United States, 12% of people under 30 and 6% of people over 30 could be characterized as non-religious.
  • A 2005 poll by AP/Ipsos [25] surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States had most certainty about the existence of god or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic) while France had the most skeptics (19% atheist, 16% agnostic). On the religion question South Korea had the greatest percentage without a religion (41%) while Italy had the smallest (5%).

Statistical problems

Statistics on atheism are often difficult to accurately represent for a variety of reasons.

Atheism is nonexclusive

Atheism is a position compatible with other forms of identity. Some atheists also consider themselves Agnostic, Buddhist, or hold other philosophical beliefs. Therefore, given limited poll options, some may use other terms to describe their identity.

Misrepresentation

Some politically motivated organizations that report or gather population statistics may, intentionally or carelessly, misrepresent atheists. Also many atheists, particluarly former Catholics, are still counted as Christians in church rosters. Many Christians believe that "once a person is Christian, that person is always a Christian" [26].

Misunderstanding and external pressure

A negative perception of atheists and pressure from family and peers may also cause some atheists to disassociate themselves from atheism. Misunderstanding of the term may also be a reason some label themselves differently.

Discrimination

Legal and social discrimination against atheists in some places may lead some to deny or conceal their atheism due to fears of persecution.

Views of atheism

Judaism

In general, formulations of Jewish principles of faith require a belief in God (represented by Judaism's paramount prayer, the Shema). In many modern movements in Judaism, rabbis have generally considered the behavior of a Jew to be the determining factor in whether or not one is considered an adherent of Judaism. Within these movements it is often recognized that it is possible for a Jew to strictly practise Judaism as a faith, while at the same time being an agnostic or atheist, giving rise to the joke: "Q: What do you call a Jew who doesn't believe in God? A: A Jew." It is also worth noting that Reconstructionism does not require any belief in a deity, and that certain popular Reform prayer books such as Gates of Prayer offer some services without mention of God.

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook [27][28], first Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in pre-state Israel, held that atheists were not actually denying God: rather, they were denying one of man's many images of God. Since any man-made image of God can be considered an idol, Kook held that, in practice, one could consider atheists as helping true religion burn away false images of god, thus in the end serving the purpose of true monotheism.

Islam

In Islam, atheists are categorized as kafir, a term that is also used to describe polytheists, and that translates roughly as "denier" or "concealer". The noun kafir carries connotations of blasphemy and disconnection from the Islamic community, and is widely used to describe non-Muslims in general. In Arabic, "atheism" is generally translated ilhad (إلحاد), although this also means "heresy". As the Sharia punishment for apostasy in Islam is death and such apostasy is also widely socially disapproved of, atheists (as well as converts from Islam to other religions) in Islamic countries and communities frequently conceal their non-belief. The surveys mentioned above that indicate 100 percent religious belief in certain Islamic countries should be interpreted in light of this fact.

Asian traditions

It is difficult to categorize the Eastern thought systems in distinct terms of theism or atheism. Therefore, it should be noted that even the thoughts that would be characterized as atheistic in the western sense, often have some theistic tendencies, and vice versa.

Carvaka (also Charvaka) was a materialist and atheist school of thought in India, which is now known principally from fragments cited by its Hindu and Buddhist opponents. The proper aim of a Carvakan, according to these sources, was to live a prosperous, happy, productive life in this world (cf Epicureanism). There is some evidence that the school persisted until at least 1578. Buddhism is often believed to be atheistic, since it opposed the gods and rituals of Vedic religion. However, Buddhist documents, such as Asvagosha's Buddhacarita, suggest a strong polytheistic tendency in Buddhism. Later expressions of Buddhism, especially among the Mahayana schools, also display many theistic characteristics in their descriptions of the cosmic Buddha, and the nature of the world. Other schools continue to consider themselves as fundamentally atheistic, in the strong sense of the term.

Confucianism and Taoism are arguably atheistic in the sense that they do not explicitly affirm, or are founded upon a faith in, a higher being or beings. However, Confucian writings do have numerous references to 'Heaven,' which denotes a transcendent power, with a personal connotation. Neo-Confucian writings, such as that of Chu Hsi, are vague on whether their conception of the Great Ultimate is like a personal deity or not. Also, although the Western translation of the Tao as 'god' in some editions of the Tao te Ching is highly misleading, it is still a matter of debate whether the actual descriptions of the Tao by Lao Zi has theistic or atheistic undertones.

Atheism, morality, and religion

Many world religions teach that morality is derived from, for example, the commandments of a particular deity, and, further, that fear of the gods is a major factor in motivating people towards moral behavior. Consequently, atheists have frequently been accused of being amoral or immoral. For example, for many years in the United States, atheists were not allowed to testify in court because it was believed that an atheist would have no reason to tell the truth.

Atheists reject this view and often assert that they are as motivated towards moral behavior as anyone — if only by their upbringing, a human concern for others, society's laws, a desire for a good reputation, and self-esteem. Francis Bacon writes: "Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." [29] In addition, while atheism, as a negative position, does not entail any particular moral philosophy, many atheists are drawn towards views like Secular Humanism and Utilitarianism which provide a moral framework that is not founded on faith in deities.

Atheists have also argued that no religious basis is necessary for one to live an ethical life. [30] They assert that truly ethical behavior would come from altruistic motivation, not from fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. Further, they cite the fact that within many religions the concept of morality is presented as a list of prohibitions; thou shall not's compiled as a check against ones actions. They assert that abiding by a list of prohibitions is not sufficient for genuinely ethical behavior and that morality should be positive rather than negative; What should I do? rather than What shouldn't I do?. They believe that reason guided by humanism and rational thought will lead to a more fully expressed ethical life.

Similarly, atheism is not synonymous with irreligion. There are religious belief systems, including much of Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarian Universalism, and some Liberal Quaker groups which do not require theistic belief. A number of atheistic churches have been established, such as the Naturalistic Pantheists, Brianism, the Church of Reality, and the Fellowship of Reason.

Logical positivism

Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer view any talk of gods as literally nonsense. According to logical positivism, "Does god exist?" has the same status as "What color is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no meaningful answers. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and deemed to be without meaning.

Their epistemological (nature of knowledge) beliefs make ontological (belief or knowledge of existence) questions concerning deities nonsensical. The use of the word "god" for them becomes solely a matter of semantics (the use of a word rather than the nature of the referenced entity).

Reasons for atheism

Typical reasons people are atheists include:

Lack of evidence

"Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science, and cannot therefore be dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries." [31]

Arguments

"Throughout the centuries, theistic philosophers have offered logical arguments in support of God's existence. Most of these can be divided into four major classes - ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral" and atheists contend that these have been refuted. [32]

Problem of evil

"The problem of evil is probably the most enduring and the most potent argument atheism has to offer against many varieties of theism. Christian apologist William Lane Craig aptly styled it atheism's killer argument. In brief, it seeks to establish that the existence of evil in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of a benevolent God, and that it is more reasonable to conclude that God does not exist than that he does exist but does nothing to stop evil." [33]

Moral and practical reasons

Moral reasons for atheism include "cases where the requirement to do what is right favors being an atheist, or at the very least, not supporting certain sects or practices of theism.... Those who cannot accept the notion of an evil god must conclude that any immoral religion is necessarily false." Practical reasons for atheism include "reasons why accepting atheism over theism produces positive overall effects on a person's life." [34]

Moral reasons include war and terrorism brought about by religion; and intellectual integrity, searching for explanations through natural science instead of through theism.

Social reasons

"Many people are atheists not because they've reasoned things out like that, but because of the way they were brought up or educated, or because they have simply adopted the beliefs of the culture in which they grew up." BBC. Most atheists contend that the same is true for many believers, for instance, most of the population in predominantly Jewish, Muslim, or Christian countries follow the religion that is more prevalent without much questioning.

Psychological reasons

Christian psychologist Paul Vitz (1999) argues that, "Many people have psychological reasons for atheism" [35] and "neurotic psychological barriers to belief in God are of great importance" [36]. See Vitz (1999) and, for a similar view, Rizzuto (1998).

While it is common to point out the psychological reasons for not being an atheist, it is important to note that emotion (spirit, motivation, psychology) plays an important role for everyone; not just believers in god. For many atheists, an understanding of the powerful psychological and emotional reasons for the belief in God may contribute to their lack of religious belief. There may also be a psychological understanding of the nature of belief in itself. See for example true believer syndrome. See also Psychology of religion for scientific studies of religion and beliefs.

Is atheism a belief?

Many, if not most, atheists have preferred to say that atheism is a lack of a belief, not a belief in its own right (see for example Krueger (1998, p.22-24); Smith (1979, p.15-16)); This keeps the burden of proof on the theist (see Flew (1984b)), as the only one making any positive assertions. "Belief" also has other connotations that many atheists wish to avoid. To put the issue in less controversial terms, many if not most atheists have also rejected the idea that atheism constitutes a coherent system of thought.

Flint (1877) observes:

Atheists have seldom undertaken to do more than to refute the reasons adduced in favour of belief in God... And the reason is obvious. It is proverbially difficult to prove a negative... (p.8-9)

Nevertheless, some atheist writers identify atheism with the naturalistic world view, and defend it on that basis. The case for naturalism is used as a positive argument for atheism. See for example Thrower (1971), Harbour (2001), Nielsen (2001), and Baggini (2003). See also Everitt's discussion of an anti-atheist argument against naturalism (2004, Chapter 9, p.178-190).

According to Thrower,

Much atheism... can be understood only in the light of the current theism which it was concerned to reject. Such atheism is relative. There is, however, a way of looking at and interpreting events in the world, whose origins... can be seen as early as the beginnings of speculative thought itself, and which I shall call naturalistic, that is atheistic per se, in the sense that it is incompatible with any and every form of supernaturalism... naturalistic or absolute atheism is both fundamentally more important, and more interesting, representing as it does one polarity in the development of the human spirit. (p.3-4)

Baggini argues that, "atheism can be understood not simply as a denial of religion, but as a self-contained belief system, if it is seen as a commitment to the view that there is only one world and this is the world of nature" (p.74). For Baggini, therefore,

the evidence for atheism is to be found in the fact that there is a plethora of evidence for the truth of naturalism and an absence of evidence for anything else. 'Anything else' of course includes God, but it also includes goblins, hobbits, and truly everlasting gobstoppers. There is nothing special about God in this sense. God is just one of the things that atheists don’t believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name. (p.17)

Baggini's position is that "an atheist does not usually believe in the existence of immortal souls, life after death, ghosts, or supernatural powers. Although strictly speaking an atheist could believe in any of these things and still remain an atheist... the arguments and ideas that sustain atheism tend naturally to rule out other beliefs in the supernatural or transcendental" (p.3-4).

Martin (1990, p.470) notes that the view that "naturalism is compatible with nonatheism is true only if 'god' is understood in a most peculiar and misleading way", but he also points out that "atheism does not entail naturalism".

Indeed, some significant atheists have argued in favour of immortality. See for example McTaggart (1927): "I think we may properly say that the self is immortal" (p.185, section 503).

See also

Wikiquote has quotations related to Atheism.

Web sites

Articles

References

  • Altizer, Thomas J.J. (1967). The Gospel of Christian Atheism. London: Collins. Electronic Text
  • Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God. London: Vintage. ISBN 0099273675
  • Baggini, Julian (2003). Atheism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192804243.
  • Berman, David (1990). A History of Atheism in Britain: from Hobbes to Russell. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415047277.
  • Berman, David (1983). David Hume and the Suppression of Atheism. in Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 21 (3), July 1983, p.375-387.
  • Berman, David (1982). The Repressive Denials of Atheism in Britain in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 82c, (9), p.211-246.
  • Borne, Étienne (1961). Atheism. New York: Hawthorn Books. [Originally published in France under the title Dieu n’est pas mort: essai sur l’atheisme contemporain. Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1959]
  • d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). Good Sense. Electronic Text
  • Drachmann, A. B. (1922). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition"). ISBN 0890052018.
  • Everitt, Nicholas (2004). The Non-existence of God: An Introduction. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415301076.
  • Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
  • Flew, Antony (1984a). God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. ISBN 0879751274.
  • Flew, Antony (1984b). The Presumption of Atheism. New York: Prometheus.
  • Flew, Antony (1972). The Presumption of Atheism. in Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 2, p.29-46 [reprinted in Flew 1984a and 1984b above]
  • Flint, Robert (1877). Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877. London: William Blackwood and Sons. 5th ed, 1894.
  • Gaskin, J.C.A. (ed) (1989). Varieties of Unbelief: from Epicurus to Sartre. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 002340681X.
  • Harbour, Daniel (2001). An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0715632299.
  • Hitchens, Christopher (2001). Letters to a Young Contrarian. New York: Basic Books.
  • Krueger, D. E. (1998). What is atheism?: A short introduction. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1573922145.
  • Lyas, Colin (1970). On the Coherence of Christian Atheism. in Philosophy: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. Vol. 45 (171), January 1970. pp.1-19.
  • Maritain, Jacques (1953). The Range of Reason. London: Geoffrey Bles. Electronic Text
    • Note: Chapter 8, The Meaning of Contemporary Atheism (p.103-117, Electronic Text) is reprinted from Review of Politics, Vol. 11 (3) July 1949, p. 267-280 Electronic Text. A version also appears The Listener, Vol. 43 No.1102, 9 March 1950. pp.427-429,432.
  • Martin, Michael (1990). Atheism: A philosophical justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. ISBN 0877229430.
  • McTaggart, John McTaggart Ellis (1927). The Nature of Existence. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Müller, F. Max (1889). Natural Religion: The Gifford Lectures, 1888. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
  • Nagel, Ernest (1965). A Defence of Atheism. in Edwards, Paul and Pap, Arthur (eds), A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: readings from classical and contemporary sources. New York: Free Press. Rev ed. pp.460-472.
  • New, Christopher (1993). Antitheism - A Reflection. in Ratio, Vol. 6 (1), June 1993, p.36-43.
  • Nielsen, Kai (2001). Naturalism and religion. New York: Prometheus.
  • Reid, J.P. (1967). Atheism. in New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: McGraw-Hill. p.1000-1003.
  • Rizzuto, Ana-Maria (1998). Why did Freud reject God?: A psychoanalytic interpretation. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300075251.
  • Smith, George H. (1990). Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. New York: Prometheus.
  • Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus. ISBN 087975124X.
  • Vitz, Paul (1999). Faith of the fatherless: the psychology of atheism. Dallas, Texas: Spence. ISBN 1890626120.

Bibliography

Works For Atheism

  • Baggini, Julian (2003). Atheism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192804243.
  • d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). Good Sense. Electronic Text
  • d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). The system of nature. Electronic versions:
  • Everitt, Nicholas (2004). The Non-existence of God: An Introduction. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415301076.
  • Flew, Antony (1984a). God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. ISBN 0879751274.
  • Flew, Antony (1984b). The Presumption of Atheism. New York: Prometheus.
  • Flew, Antony (1966). God and Philosophy. London: Hutchinson & Co.
  • Harbour, Daniel (2001). An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism. London: Duckworth. ISBN 0715632299.
  • Krueger, D. E. (1998). What is atheism?: A short introduction. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 1573922145.
  • Le Poidevin, R. (1996). Arguing for atheism: An introduction to the philosophy of religion. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415093384.
  • Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019824682X.
  • Martin, Michael, & Monnier, R. (Eds.). (2003). The impossibility of God. New York: Prometheus.
  • Martin, Michael (1990). Atheism: A philosophical justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. ISBN 0877229430.
  • McTaggart, John McTaggart Ellis (1930). Some Dogmas of Religion. London: Edward Arnold & Co., new edition. [First published 1906]
  • Mills, D. (2004). Atheist Universe, Xlibris, ISBN 1413434819.
  • Nielsen, Kai (1985). Philosophy and Atheism. New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0879752890.
  • Robinson, Richard (1964). An Atheist's Values Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Sharpe, R.A. (1997). The Moral Case Against Religious Belief. London: SCM Press. ISBN 0334026806.
  • Smith, George H. (1990). Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. New York: Prometheus.
  • Smith, George H. (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus. ISBN 087975124X.
  • Stenger, Victor J. (2003). Has science found God?. New York: Prometheus.

Works Against Atheism

  • Cudworth, Ralph, The True Intellectual System of the Universe: the first part, wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted and its impossibility demonstrated (1678).
  • de Mornay, Phillipe, A woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists in London, 1587.
  • Flint, Robert (1877). Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877. London: William Blackwood and Sons. 5th ed, 1894.
  • McGrath, A. (2005). The Twilight of Atheism : The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. ISBN 0385500629

Works About Atheism

  • Berman, David (1990). A History of Atheism in Britain: from Hobbes to Russell. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415047277.
  • Buckley, M. J. (1987). At the origins of modern atheism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Drachmann, A. B. (1922). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition"). ISBN 0890052018
  • Sobel, Jordan H. (2004). Logic and theism: Arguments for and against beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stein, G. (Ed.). (1984). The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief (Vols. 1-2). New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0879753072.
  • Thrower, James (1971). A Short History of Western Atheism. London: Pemberton. ISBN 0301711011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&oldid=23777143"