An Introduction to Atheism Last Modified: July 13, 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atheism is, simply put, the absence of theism; that is, the absence of a belief in god or gods. The wide variety of proposed gods makes it somewhat difficult to determine precisely what it is a person has to not believe to be an atheist. In general, one is an atheist if one does not have any of the large set of beliefs that would classify one as a theist, that is, one does not believe in any god or gods. In general, we refrain from designating as atheists those whose lack of belief stems from insufficient mental capacity, never having encountered the notion, and so on. This is generally done for the same reason one wouldn't ordinarily describe an infant as not believing that Bill Clinton has done a good job running the country; he doesn't know who Bill Clinton is and so his lack of belief reflects nothing. However, the term does include those who consider the existence of a god or gods possible. This is necessary to prevent a form of dishonest equivocation. Some people claim that they are not sure whether god exists, but nevertheless deny not believing in god. This maneuver's sole purpose is to allow someone who is clearly atheistic to avoid having to say that they do not believe in God. If you consider the question open, you don't believe; it's that simple. Atheists then fall into two major categories, often called strong (or critical) and weak atheists. Weak atheists simply do not believe in any god or gods. Strong atheists, however, go on to state that all proposed gods do not exist, that is, they assert that all theistic beliefs are wrong. This is a characteristic that they share with agnostics -- the notion of rationality applies to justification as well as truth value. Weak atheists generally fall into two categories. Skeptical atheists failure to believe in god is an extension of their failure to believe in things generally. They believe that reality is unknowable, and that since religious claims involve knowledge of reality, they should be rejected. The other category, to my knowledge unnamed, reflects the position that the evidence for god is simply insufficient to establish religion's case. Additional evidence may amass in the future, but until such time, a belief in god is unwarranted. Strong atheists generally explain their view as follows: The term god, in so far as it means anything, contains built in contradictions and impossibilities that make it logically impossible for anything that met that definition to exist. Should I ever become convinced that some entity does exist that someone else wishes to label god, I would object to the label for exactly the same reason that convinced me that this entity existed. Any argument supporting strong atheism necessarily supports weak atheism, because if the strong atheists are right, so are the weak atheists. The position discussed and defended herein is strong atheism. Throughout, my primary focus will be on the truth or falsity of various religious claims. To justify this focus, I need to establish a certain principle, namely that a notion should be accepted if and only if it is true. Of course, we often are not absolutely certain, but in these cases we should accept the notion as possible, likely, probable, or whatever the evidence to support the notion justifies. Though this seems trivial, many arguments raised by theists attempt to circumvent this principle. One such argument, for example, is that one should believe in god because such belief causes people to be nicer to each other. Though seldom stated in so bald a fashion, this type of `argument' is common. Another common argument form that violates this principle is that belief in god should be based upon faith. Absent the claim that faith is a viable method for discerning truth from falsity, this argument essentially boils down to the claim that religious arguments should be accepted whether or not they are accompanied by proof or evidence. In addition, numerous arguments that theists make are based on an implicit granting of special status to their claims. Strong atheists deny religious claims this special status that they often need. In a fair marketplace of ideas, these arguments fall flat. One such argument is defending the claim that ``god is good'' despite clear evidence to the contrary (earthquakes that kill innocent people) by claiming that man cannot understand why or how, but these actions are good nonetheless. Obviously, this argument would equally well support the claim that god is evil with the exceptions (those things that appear good) now being, though man cannot understand why or how, actually evil. Similar arguments claim that miracles prove the existence of god. As Hospers notes; if a plane crashes and a hundred people die but one survives. ``It's a miracle,'' claims the family of the survivor. I doubt the families of the deceased would concur. A plane crashes and a hundred people survive but one dies. The family of the deceased has experienced an equally unlikely event, but no one is going to claim it's a miracle. Theists try to make such arguments because they are not used to being seriously challenged. And they get away with it because their audiences are usually either unable or unwilling to challenge them. Some arguments used by theists are more formidable, and deserve to be dealt with directly, but surprisingly many fall into the above category. One common claim is that the notion of god is explanatory. That is, certain events are unexplainable without the invocation of a deity. Common target events are the existence of life, the existence of matter, the ``first cause'' of the universe, and so on. Though each of these arguments has its specific weaknesses, they share a serious general weakness. Before one concept can be invoked to explain another, that concept must itself be known and understood. An unknown and unknowable explanation is no different from no explanation at all. Simply put, no natural mystery can be rendered less mysterious by arguing that god made things the way they are. The mystery simply becomes changed. Instead of wondering why things are the way they are (instead of some other way) we now wonder why god made things the way they are (instead of some other way). Interestingly, science often answers questions of the first type, and religions have never added to man's store of knowledge by answering questions of the second type. Another form of argument seldom made explicitly is that one should believe in god because many `authorities' say that god exists. This argument is based on the assertion that one cannot individually verify every fact that one believes; one must sometimes take the word of another, and if a person is an expert in a field, we should accept his claims within that field. The error in this argument is its failure to acknowledge that questioning others is a form of personal verification. This is exactly how techniques like cross-examination function in a courtroom and the reason they are so effective. Worse, for every knowledgeable expert you can materialize who claims god exists, I can find one equally qualified who does not believe in god. Ultimately, each individual must decide for himself what he will believe. What will persuade him is how well such authorities can argue for and defend their beliefs. In general, this should be what made them experts in the first place. There are no arguments in support of weak atheism. All weak atheists need to do is show that the proponents of god have not made their case. Just as those who don't believe in magic elves needn't bring in evidence to support their position. Let those who propose that magic elves do exist present their evidence and we will show it insufficient to justify belief in a fair fight. The arguments raised to support theism fall into two broad categories. Some arguments are made explicitly and precisely and require detailed, technical responses. Some arguments are usually made informally, and demand a more common-sense response. Informal Arguments: * Miracles prove the existence of god * Believe in God or go to Hell (and Pascal's Wager) * My personal religious experiences prove the existence of god * If not for god, we could have no morals * God exists because my holy book says so * So many believers can't be wrong Serious Arguments: * There must be a First Cause, call it God * Faith is a valid means of gaining knowledge * Design implies a designer -- the universe shows design * There must exist a Necessary Being At this point we have established that the case for god is as weak as the case for any other proposed entity for which no evidence whatsoever exists. If a person were to continue to believe in god despite understanding the merits of his case (none at all), he would be equally well compelled to believe in magic elves. In short, we have established the case of the weak atheist. The weak atheist's position consisted simply of denying that the theist has met his burden of proof. The strong atheist, however, has his own burden of proof to meet. First, we need to note that we don't have to accept another person's word as to his beliefs. If someone claimed to believe in god, but when pressed, admitted that by ``god'' he simply meant the chair on which he was sitting, we would not label that a belief in ``god'' because we know what the term ``god'' means, even if he doesn't. Similarly, if someone claimed to be an atheist, but still believed in an omnipotent, omniscient creator who he called ``Baal'', we would still label him a theist because we would consider his creator a god even if he does not. Without this point, the strong atheist would face an infinite burden of proof; any concept at all could be designated ``god'' by someone for some reason. However, so long as we require the term ``god'' to mean something, that something can be investigated for compatibility with logical possibility. Thus, the strong atheist must establish that anything that would reasonably be classifiable as ``god'' is incompatible with existence. This incompatibility would have to be at the level of logical possibility, and not simply based on a lack of available evidence. In fact, it is precisely this difference in level that separates weak and strong atheists. There will never exist a `spengfi'. Even if we discover something we subsequently decide to call a `spengfi', it certainly does not now possess the necessary qualities to be classified as a `spengfi' because there aren't any! What are some of the properties generally associated with the term ``god''? Unless we grant the term some content, we are forced to conclude that no such entity could ever exist. To be something is to be something specific. Some of the properties often associated with the term god are: * Omniscience: Knowing everything, past present, and future * Omnibenevolence: Always good, incapable of evil * Omnipresent: In all places equally at all times * Omnipotent: Capable of doing anything, possessing unlimited power * Creator: Created the entire universe from nothing at all * Spiritual: Non-physical * Transcendent: Somehow above all that is material * Timeless: Unchanging and possibly ``beyond'' time * Holy: I have no idea what it means to say that god is holy * Active: The producer of miracles or other disruptions of nature * Arbiter: What god says is good, is good. God sets moral laws * Unknowable: Man cannot understand or conceptualize god's nature. Three broad classes of arguments are used by strong atheists. One class demonstrates the logical impossibility of any entity meeting certain of the above criteria. Another class of arguments examines what is necessary for any concept to meet its burden of proof and demonstrates that possession of any of the traits necessary for classification as a ``god'' prevent the burden of proof from being met. The third class of arguments examines the known physical universe for pieces of evidence inconsistent with any sort of god. These arguments tend to apply to different pieces of the constellation of qualities generally associated with the term ``god''. The strong atheist's position is that the sum of these arguments is sufficient to show that no entity could have enough of these qualities to qualify as ``god'' without falling victim to enough of these arguments to rule out that entity's possibility of existence. An example of the first type of argument would attack the notion that god is both ``outside'' time and yet simultaneously capable of intervening in the affairs of men. The notion of a timeless creation, for example, is blatantly contradictory. What would it mean, for example, for a timeless being to judge someone? Or perform any action? In short, god's timelessness contradicts his ability to act as creator; a timeless god cannot be an active god. Another example of the first type of argument is the fact that any entity is necessarily finite. Simply put, for one to have a notion of god, god must be defined. To `define' is to limit, to draw the boundaries, to separate the ``god'' from the ``not-god''. Simply put, it is not possible for an entity to possess limitless power; the notion of power presupposes limits. What god can do, he can do; what he can not do he can not do. No matter how much power we grant god, that is how much he has and no more. This argument attacks all the ``omni'' properties. An example of the second type of argument is closely related to the above argument. Any observation is necessarily finite. Any observation of power can only suggest finite power. Thus any entity possessing an ``infinite'' attribute could never be shown to exist. Thus the existence of a ``god'' could never be part of man's store of knowledge. In other words, no one could ever know or claim that ``god'' exists. An example of the third type of argument is the existence of evil. If we require that God be all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, why then is there evil in the world. Does god not know of the evil? Does he not wish to end it? Can he not end it? Key strong atheist arguments: * There can be no creator * There can be no such thing as an infinite attribute * Evil exists * A being ``outside time'' is not a being * Morality can not be imposed by a super-being * Truth must be knowable in principle * For god to be ``good'' he must seem so by human standards The above arguments, taken together, constitute a body of evidence to suggest that any proposed entity that has enough of the ``god-properties'' to qualify as ``god'' would, by virtue of those same properties, be logically incapable of existing. Of course, there are counter-arguments to the above arguments. If this essay were to go on forever, it would next consider each of those and rebut them. But, I hope the information presented is sufficient to demolish the theist's position in your eyes. If you have any questions about the above, feel free to contact me by e-mail at Stimpson@Panix.COM. In addition, George Smith's book Atheism: The Case Against God does an excellent job of establishing the case for strong atheism. If you are looking for a powerful, consistent philosophical system to replace theism, may I suggest you read my Introduction to Objectivism series. It makes the case for full rationalism which, of course, includes atheism. Return to the Joel Katz Home Page END****************************************************************************