Partner article to my honest analysis and appraisal of Christianity.
This is a subject on which one cannot say anything without receiving hatred in return. Indeed, a number of people haven’t even read this far, already so full of anger at me for daring to touch on this issue.
Atheism is one of those concepts about which many people think they understand but have never sufficiently thought through. There are also many people who very much want to pick a fight over this concept of atheism, though it is fair to say that the more anger there is behind the fight, the less introspection and knowledge there is from the fighter.
That’s also how politics is, and there is a very direct correlation between the pissing match between political parties and the pissing match between theists and atheists. In reality, those who attack and those who defend atheism are engaged in a political battle — a battle of two competing ideologies fixated on two dogmatic belief systems.
I’m neither a theist nor an atheist because I understand that the self-limiting arguments between theists and atheists are illogical. All of them and from both sides. Immanuel Kant way back in the late 1700s demonstrated conclusively that it was impossible to rationally prove or disprove the existence of god. It was ridiculous to try. Yet, theists and atheists continue to try.
Even nihilist and absurdist Albert Camus understood this, saying, “I do not believe in God, and I am not an atheist.” He agreed with Kant that it was impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of god and, therefore, he could not be an atheist who believes that God does not exist. Even Camus understood what belief means and that atheism is a belief and truth claim.
The Nature of Belief
Here’s how it works.
If you have an idea, that is your belief.
If you think an idea is true, you believe it is true.
If you think an idea is not true, you believe it is not true.
If you think you are correct and someone else is wrong, it is because you believe that your belief is correct and the other person’s belief is wrong.
If you believe you aren’t believing, that is your belief.
It’s beliefs all the way down and round and round. You can’t escape this fundamental reality of thought — all you have are beliefs.
If you can put a name to any idea, that’s a statement of belief.
If you can add an -ism to the belief, and assert it as a sensible belief, then that is a belief system.
If you say your belief system is simply a denial of someone else’s belief, then we circle back to what was established earlier.
If you think a belief system is not true, you believe it is not true.
It’s beliefs all the way down and round and round.
And if you keep talking about it, then you are asserting your active belief system.
If you argue against someone else’s belief system, it is because you are asserting your belief that your active belief system is true and that the other person’s belief system is not true.
It’s beliefs all the way down and round and round.
And all of these things are true even if you want to believe they aren’t true.
Atheism Is a Belief
Theism is a belief and atheism is a belief. Neither belief can be proven, but to be fair, the number of beliefs that can be proven beyond all doubt are disturbingly small. Let’s apply a bit of logical deconstruction of these beliefs and dispel one of the central falsehoods of atheists.
Theism — the belief in a singular deity — is the belief that the proposition God Exists (GE) is true. Theism is a truth claim for GE since, for any proposition P, to believe P is to take P to hold in the actual world. Beliefs are active assertions that a state of affairs is true in the actual world. To believe something is to believe that it is true, and it is the height of irrationality to believe something yet think it is false, or to not believe something yet think it is true.
The proposition GE is an existential proposition (the question of existence) and such propositions are different from propositions such as “democracy is the best political system.” All existential propositions are binary: necessarily either absolutely true or absolutely false. You can’t be a little pregnant or kind of dead, you either are or you are not. The existential proposition GE is objectively either true or false in the actual world and, because of the law of the excluded middle, if it is false then its negation is necessarily true.
To deny any existential proposition is necessarily to assume its negation, for example, the Loch Ness Monster either exists or does not exist, there are no other options for you to choose. The negation of GE is the proposition God Does Not Exist (Not-GE).
Rational people either believe that GE is true, believe that GE is false and thus necessarily believe Not-GE is true, or say they do not know, claiming neither. The first position is theism, the second atheism, the third agnosticism. Atheism is the denial that the proposition GE is true and thus to necessarily hold that Not-GE is true. To withhold assent to both GE and Not-GE — assert that one does not know — is agnosticism. It is necessarily the case that unless one claims ignorance, agnosticism, then one is assenting to either GE or Not-GE — logical use of language prevents other possibilities.
That atheists believe that Not-GE is true is obvious in and beyond their embrace of the term “atheism.” The term is used by atheists to differentiate themselves from believers, a differentiation only desired if they reject what the believers believe. Rejection equates to saying the believers in GE are wrong which is the assertion that the negation of the belief in GE (i.e. — Not-GE) is true.
The derisive assertions of atheists that religious believers believe in “fairy tales” or “imaginary friends” and are “irrational” are strong assertions by atheists that they believe that religious belief is wrong. No sane person asserts that a belief is wrong without believing the opposite is correct, so to criticize GE prima facie is to assert Not-GE.
In addition, the atheists’ negative reactions to expressions of belief in GE show they are a believer in Not-GE. If one is neutral on the subject then one has no cause to oppose expression of a belief, or even interest in doing so. That atheists are frequently openly critical of religious belief shows that they are indeed not neutral on the subject and in fact have committed to the position of Not-GE. They believe that there is no God. For the atheist to claim that they don’t believe Not-GE is being intellectually dishonest.
Atheism is clearly withholding assent to GE, which is self-evident because it is a logical contradiction to be an atheist and believe that God exists (GE). Similarly, it would be contradictory for someone to believe GE is true yet believe not-GE. Again, an existential question is binary, an either-or without a middle ground. Atheism is a belief in not-GE. QED.
Atheism Is a Truth Claim
When someone says “I am an atheist” that atheist is claiming that (1) GE is objectively not true (God does not exist), (2) the atheist believes GE is not true, and (3) the atheist is in a satisfactory relationship with the truth value of GE to claim 1 and 2. (All of this is also true for the theist and their claims for the truth of GE.) Atheism is a term that encompasses these three claims that are necessary equivalents to the statement, “I am an atheist.” Atheism is the belief that GE is false, meaning the belief that Not-GE is true, which means atheism is necessarily a truth claim for the proposition Not-GE.
One objection to this that some atheists make is to say that the Atheist makes no claim but simply does not believe the truth claim GE. That this objection is absurd is easily seen when we ask if one can disbelieve the truth claim GE while holding that GE is still true. This would, of course, be nonsense.
If someone where to say “I do not believe it is raining but it is raining” we immediately see the contradiction. If one does not believe it is raining that is only because they think the proposition “it is raining” is not true. Likewise one does not say “I do not believe the claim that Santa Claus exists” while still believing that Santa Claus does exist. You cannot be an aclausist without believing that there is no Santa Claus.
Another evasion atheists try is to say that their atheism is a judgment not a belief or truth claim. This is just a semantic game. A judgment is a commitment to the truth of a proposition. As Maurice Merleau-Ponty wisely observed: “judgment is the taking of a position, it aims at knowing something valid for me at every moment of my life and for other minds.” The atheist judgment is that only Not-GE is a valid truth claim for all other minds.
If the atheist tries to say they are not making an implicit claim to objective truth about Not-GE, then they are just expressing subjective opinion, no more meaningful than “I like blue.” The atheist can only adopt that position if he/she also forfeits any basis for judging the validity of their own or others’ positions on GE, meaning being atheist is no better than being a theist. This clearly the atheist does not accept because they do make the judgment that theism is incorrect and that their atheism is a superior truth claim.
The atheist is making the judgment that their belief is true and the belief of the theist is not true. In forming the judgment “I am an atheist,” the atheist commits to the truth of the proposition that is claimed by the judgment, Not-GE. Atheism is a truth claim.
Yet another evasion atheists try, after earlier evasions fail, is to say that they are simply entertaining a certain state of affairs, for example, imagining there is no god. If imagining is all they are doing, then there would be no adoption of the label “atheist.” The adoption of a label is a commitment to a position, a judgment, not an imagining. So unless the person adopting the label is being dishonest, their use of the label expresses their adherence to a position, expressing that “I have decided that there is no god.” (Not-GE) So anyone who calls him or herself an “atheist” is either committing to a belief or being dishonest in their self portrayal. For the atheist to claim that atheism is not a belief is intellectual dishonesty.
Finally, we must deal with the evasion that atheism is simply non-belief not a belief. This is absurd on the face of it as shown above: to not believe GE is to believe Not-GE. It cannot be the case that atheists do not have a belief. However, this atheists’ evasion points to a corollary position of the person who is neutral on GE and Not-GE — an agnostic. Agnosticism is an honorable position and perhaps the only logical position in regard to GE and Not-GE since both beliefs are unprovable.
Some atheists try to pretend that atheism is really agnosticism, a simple open-minded lack of belief, which is really being dishonest. The difference between the atheist and the agnostic non-believer is that the agnostic does not feel any need to oppose the believer, he or she simply does not believe and has no need to make an issue of it. If one was truly non-religious one would have no desire for the label “atheist” and no desire to make the derisive assertions about believers that atheists do. More on that derision later. Again, atheists reveal their belief in Not-GE every time they criticize those who believe GE is true.
Again, existential questions are either-or. Pro and anti positions to an existential question are equivalent to “yes” and “no” claims to the question. For the atheist to say that atheism makes no truth claim is intellectual dishonesty. The atheist is not simply living without belief in God because living without belief requires no label, it is simply living. Adopting the label “atheist” is adopting an antagonistic stance against religion and religious people.
“Atheist” Is a Claim of Identity
To say “I am an atheist” is to make not only a truth claim but a claim to a personal identity and a confession of a worldview. Atheism is more than a belief and more than a truth claim. Atheism is a claim of a superior stance on reality and a superior lifestyle; it is a claim of open opposition to and even hostility toward religious people.
There’s an important difference between being uninterested in the theist hypothesis and taking a position against it. Those who wave the flag of atheism are asserting the truth claim that the theist hypothesis is false — stating their belief that there is no god. Even more, those who wave the flag of atheism are openly campaigning against religious people.
Atheism is the personal belief that there is no God — belief that the hypothesis of God is not true leading therefore to the necessary conclusion that the hypothesis of no god is true. Secular humanism is the -ism that systematizes the atheist belief into a social program. But atheism defines the secular humanist approach to social life — the belief that the hypothesis of Not-GE should define our approach to the world. The atheist secular humanist is motivated by belief in the same way that the fundamentalist is motivated by belief. That many atheists campaign for the abolition of religion is evidence of that. Some atheists are on a crusade to proselytize their belief in Not-GE, and if it is wrong for religious people to try to push their beliefs on others, then it is wrong for atheists too.
Well, fine, atheists are entitled to their belief. But atheist faux intellectuals run around creating memes and videos and troll social media asserting their truth claims and harassing all who don’t share their beliefs, and then they try to hide behind this nonsense claiming that they don’t have beliefs. Atheism is a belief system just as is fundamentalism (which includes biblical inerrancy among other truth clams they believe). It’s beliefs all the way down and round and round. It’s stupid for atheists to deny it. It’s unethical for atheists to attack others and try to hide behind false claims that they aren’t asserting anything.
It all matters because beliefs are who we are, our beliefs are central to our worldview and the worldview in which we believe molds our perceptions and actions. To say “I’m an atheist” is a confession of a belief, a truth claim, and a worldview that affects that person’s perceptions and actions. It’s fundamentally (pun intended) no different that the religious person’s statement of belief.
The Dishonesty of Atheism
We are left with the interesting question of why atheists try to pretend they haven’t made the intellectual commitment they clearly have made. Why aren’t atheists, who so loudly and proudly denounce any belief in GE, are not equally loudly and proudly championing their own belief in Not-GE? What are atheists afraid of?
The answer must be because atheists seek to escape critical inquiry of their position — to be blunt, it is a coward’s way out to say, “atheism isn’t a belief.” It is easier to criticize others than to defend yourself, so the atheist tries to exercise the right to criticize others while seeking to be above criticism. For the atheist to claim that atheism is not a belief is not just intellectual dishonesty it is fearfulness and an admission that they know their position of Not-GE is impossible to defend.
Another evasion atheists try is to say that everyone is an atheist because everyone can say there is a religion they reject. To say that a Christian is an atheist because they reject belief in Shiva is beyond ridiculous. Besides, if atheism is just “I don’t believe in your god” then atheism literally is just egocentric nay saying. Plus, if everyone is an atheist then the term has no explanatory power and there would be no reason for anyone to claim, “I am an atheist.”
No, atheism is clearly something meaningful to those who adopt it as an identity. Their adoption of it is as an alternative to all religious belief because atheism IS the belief that Not-GE is true where G stands for any and all meanings of “God.”
Yet another evasion used by some atheists is the neologism “agnostic atheist.” This is an inherently contradictory construction. Agnostic means “does not know.” If one does not know then to make a judgment such as Not-GE is illogical. As we have seen before, “I do not know if it is raining, but it is not raining” is absurd. But “agnostic atheist” can only mean “I do not know if there is a God but there is no God.”
One attempt to dodge this is for the atheist to claim he does indeed not know if there is a God and therefore, he is justified, given an alleged lack of conclusive evidence, to hold Not-GE. This is the fallacy of appealing to epistemic luck. If one says, “I do not know if it is raining, but it is not raining” and then runs outside and does not get wet, this lucky circumstance does not validate the illogic of her hypothesis.
We also can see the absurdity of the “agnostic atheist” claim if we look at the atheist response to a claim to be an “agnostic theist.” This would be the claim “I do not know for certain if there is a God, but I believe there is a God.” Atheists are extremely fond of condemning belief in God with the claim there is no evidence for God, “you do not know there is a God, so you are illogical to believe there is a God.” Well, if the atheist wants to make that argument, they must also accept that the argument also refutes “agnostic atheist.” To claim the title of “agnostic atheist” is completely illogical.
Evidence and Fallacies — The Atheist’s Headache
What about the issue of evidence? the main plank of their platform: the claim that there is no evidence for God and therefore there is no God and belief in God is wrong and delusional. Certainly, that argument is fallacious–the classic argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. So, even if we grant atheists their claim that there is no evidence for God, they are still illogical to argue from that there is no God. Atheism is illogical, but are the atheists correct in their assertion that there is no evidence for God?
What is Evidence? This is one of those questions that everyone thinks they know the answer but if they thought about it, they would find it is not so simple. We want to think that what counts as evidence is something clear cut, but the reality is that it is not. Like most of human culture, what counts as evidence is a matter of subjective opinion. Some might object that this thing called “science” can determine what objectively counts as evidence. The trouble with that is that “science” is not a divine force — it is a human activity created and continued by human beings with all the inherent frailties that come with that.
C.S. Pierce argued that science is superior to other methods of fixing truth in that, unlike individual or authoritative methods, it takes into account multiple perspectives to reach a consensus. It’s the old “two heads are better than one” idea and it works. But science, though the best method for answering many questions, is still subject to human subjectivity and all human limits in perception and thinking. All scientific perspectives are still relative to a human observer. And, of course, we can only think about what we can perceive, so the limits of human perception is a very important issue for all human inquiry and especially science.
Science has been very good at attempting to overcome the limits of human perception though inventing and using instruments to extend our ability to perceive. When Robert Hooke published Micrographia in 1665, it fundamentally changed the way we viewed our world, showing us what we, including scientists, could not see before. So what counts as evidence is dependent on human limitations and human subjectivity.
So the atheist demands evidence of God. That’s fair. But what would constitute evidence of God? The atheist usually gives a simplistic response of demanding God show himself or herself as though the way divinity should behave is through columns of fire or booming voices or some such. True, some religious types do believe God manifests in that way (or used to anyway) but the majority recognize the atheist demand for the cartoon silliness that it is. Obviously, a deity, or messenger thereof, popping up like the Metatron in Bethany’s bedroom would constitute evidence but demanding that evidence be of a particular character is irrational not to mention unscientific. Let us look at an analogy that will clarify the issue.
The Atheist’s Headache
At this moment, you either do or do not have a headache. Please tell us which. Oh, and with your yes or no answer (there are no other possible options), please provide proof of your answer. No, saying you have a headache or not is not proof. What, you can’t provide any proof? Any evidence at all besides your claim? No? So we have to take your word on it for what you are experiencing? Why, yes, that is right, we would. We would, in fact, be irrational not to mention unscientific and unfair, to demand you supply evidence of whether you do or do not have a headache. Yet, the fact that we cannot prove whether anyone does or does not have a headache is not a disproof of the existence of headaches or proof that anyone who claims to have one had no such experience.
And any honest person at this point will see the relevance of this to atheism’s argument. God could be like a headache, not in that God is a pain (though that is possible) but that God could be something that is experienced such that the reality of the experience is impossible to prove to another person–like such realities no rational person denies like love, loyalty, and so on.
The atheist will respond that “a headache is something inside a person’s head and so is God, ha, ha, ha.” However, that juvenile red herring would not address the fact that all experiences are like that. Did you see the sunrise this morning? No, a photograph doesn’t prove it because that doesn’t prove that you saw it. How about this: did you notice the bird singing while the sun was rising? You could perhaps prove there was a bird singing at sunrise, but you cannot prove that you noticed it at the time. And let’s take that another direction: if you did not notice the bird singing at sunrise that in no way is evidence that there was no bird singing at sunrise. That is obvious to any rational person and yet it is the same argument that atheists insist on: they don’t notice any evidence for god therefore there is no evidence there is a god. The atheist fallacy is they want to turn human limitation and subjectivity into a universal objective proof.
The list of what the atheist cannot prove is identical to the list of atheist beliefs: god does not exist, there is no evidence for god, belief in god is irrational, belief in god is delusional, and so on. The atheist is left with no evidence whatsoever, no rational argument, no position to stand on. Atheism is none other than a subjective belief — mere opinion.
Ironically, the theist at least has a logical out that is unavailable to the atheist. That is that the theist can stand on the premise that his or her experience of a divine being is ineffable. We have to admit that is a possibility. The atheist can only counter that he or she has had no such experience, but that does not entitle him or her to the next step which is that God does not exist (Not-GE). Can a blind person rationally argue that because they cannot see there is no evidence for the existence of light and therefore belief in light is irrational and delusional? Of course not, but that is identical to what the atheist argues. So while theists have something to talk about in their alleged experiences of God the atheist can contribute nothing to that conversation. That may explain why so many atheists actively try to sabotage and silence discussion about religious experience and belief (and don’t deny it atheists, you know you do).
This discussion leaves the atheist with only one possible response: accepting that atheism is not a rational rejection of a proposition but an emotional expression of a lifestyle choice–a life without engaging in the discourse about the nature of the absolute. Here finally the atheist is on at least some kind of solid ground, staking a position outside of the discourse, living a life where the discourse does not matter to the atheist. But here still we see a lack of logic of the atheists: they seek to be outside the discourse but still claim the right to critique those engaging in the discourse.
If atheism is this removal of self from the discourse, then they have rendered themselves irrelevant to the discourse. One of my colleagues responded that it sounds like I am telling the atheist to be quiet and stand in the corner. My response is that if a friend and I are talking about baseball and you jumped into the middle of that discourse saying baseball is a stupid game and no rational person should discuss it, everyone would agree that you are being rude and boorish. You need not stand in the corner but if you have nothing to contribute to the discourse, why speak? For example, I have zero interest in NASCAR, it more or less does not exist for me, but I do not inflict my belief onto NASCAR fans, do not promulgate anti-NASCAR sentiments, and certainly do not say things like NASCAR fans are irrational and deluded and should be quiet about their beliefs.
The atheist should ask himself, why bother speaking if you have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Anyone openly brandishing the label “atheist” is showing not disinterest in the conversation but active intent to antagonize others. Living without belief in god requires no label, it is simply living. Adopting the label “atheist” is adopting an antagonistic stance against religion and religious people. We see such behavior on any other topic to be immature and so should we see the atheist in that way. If that thought offends them then it is a sign of something deeper bothering them and they should deal with their personal issues in a more constructive way.
Atheism is thus a form of bigotry. Atheists declare that religious people are irrational. Such an egotistic and hostile attitude should be filed next to “woman are irrational” “Blacks are violent.” It is easy to stand outside the house and throw proverbial rocks at it, and atheists try to take that privileged standpoint of throwing rocks from the outside but being immune from criticism for it.
Then there’s the atheists’ chestnut that religion is filled with hypocrites and unethical people. Well, to be honest, if there are humans involved then you will have hypocrisy and unethical people. Atheism tries to claim that religion is so full of hypocrisy and dishonesty that we shouldn’t be a part of it. We don’t give up on all politics because politics is corrupt. We don’t ban sports because some athletes cheat. Here too, atheists try to take a privileged standpoint in which they can criticize others but are themselves immune from criticism.
Summation
Anyone who claims they are an atheist and then tries to deny it’s a belief system that they claim is true and superior is either being intellectually dishonest to an Orwellian degree. Again, if one flies the flag of atheism and takes on the label of “atheist” one is asserting Not-GE in response to the theist’s assertion of GE.
This is especially the case with the atheists who actively attack theists and their hypothesis that God exists. Those atheists are actively taking a position on the proposition “GE” and expressing their belief that “Not-GE” is true. This is quite obvious.
If one is not taking a position on the hypothesis that god exists then they are an agnostic, not an atheist. That distinction is crucial. Agnosticism is a logically defensible position. Not-GE is inescapably illogical, and GE is logical only if one has experienced God. On that last point, no one else can be a judge for or against.