Atheism is a belief. It is not a religion.
A person is asked ‘What is your religion’ and replies ‘I’m an atheist’. The person is not saying atheism is my religion, but is simply saying I have no religion, as in‘I have no religious beliefs’. So what are religious beliefs and what makes them different to other beliefs we might have?
It’s common to hear theists argue that atheism is akin to religious belief, which they do in order to defend theism against what unbelievers might see as irrational, superstitious, or fantasy. ‘We all have our beliefs’ is the charge, then, as if the two positions were somehow equal! But that argument is specious as we will see. Atheism even at its most extreme is only a response to theism: no theism, then no atheism. Atheists do not believe ‘There are no gods’ as a matter of profound faith any more than a theist (or anyone else) believes with the same level of commitment that ‘There are no aliens’. The absolute crux of the matter is to recognise that the mystic’s committed and emotional belief in God, or gods, is a different species altogether from those who have no reason to believe in such; even the most ardent or strong atheists can make no claims to certainty, but are constrained by what can be empirically known and logically demonstrated. Theists by definition believe in God/gods. Atheists by definition lack such a belief-in, although they may, however, firmly believe that there are no gods (strong, or hard atheism). The distinction between the two is to be found in the theists' belief as faith, a spiritual, emotional or mystical understanding, which doesn't necessarily demand proof or evidence, while atheism (a-theism) is by the very meaning of the term applied to those without an unconditional spiritual belief in gods or a supreme being.
While theistic beliefs don’t require adherence to a particular religion they are nevertheless propositional, which it to say that something is being positively asserted. And it may be argued that sceptics too are asserting something in the form of their secular beliefs, which is true, but the fundamental difference between believer and non-believer is that theists (regardless of any specific doctrine or religious affiliation) believe in a deity from faith, without the necessity for factual evidence or a final proof. Atheists assert that those are wholly insufficient grounds for making a claim to the truth.
A lack of belief that there are no gods, who have supposedly done or supposedly will do particular things, is no different from not having the belief that there are alien species waiting to take over our planet. Beliefs of this form are not dogmatic, or necessarily sceptical, but amount to a contingently held conclusion, that is to say the believer is not compelled by any evidence to think otherwise but it is not being a asserted positively that such things are impossible.
Now I cannot see how it is possible to believe in a negative concept - and yet isn’t that exactly what those who say atheism and theism are ‘two sides of the same coin’ are supposing? Theist and atheist beliefs are differentiated by the nature of the beliefs, which are not to be analysed in terms of polar concepts. For as we’ve seen, theists don’t merely believe that there are gods: they believe in them. So they’ve gone farther than mere hypothesising. Now I personally think the Argument from Contingency, which makes the case for a necessarily existent cause of the universe, is a good one. But from that idea it would be quite wrong to infer that I believe in a necessarily existent cause. It isn’t a committed belief as faith and I award it no attributes, purpose, or metaphysical system but what is necessarily implied in the concept - and there is certainly no emotional investment involved. A belief that, in this context, is utterly different from a belief in, by which we mean a belief as faith, which is to say it is distinguished by a profound or doctrinal commitment. So a hard or strong atheist may well believe that there are no gods, while still allowing that gods are logically possible. But when do we hear theists say: ‘I believe in God, but God might not exist’. We don’t! And that of course is because one cannot logically believe in something while believing that it might not exist?
Happy New Year to All: hamster :: hamster :
A person is asked ‘What is your religion’ and replies ‘I’m an atheist’. The person is not saying atheism is my religion, but is simply saying I have no religion, as in‘I have no religious beliefs’. So what are religious beliefs and what makes them different to other beliefs we might have?
It’s common to hear theists argue that atheism is akin to religious belief, which they do in order to defend theism against what unbelievers might see as irrational, superstitious, or fantasy. ‘We all have our beliefs’ is the charge, then, as if the two positions were somehow equal! But that argument is specious as we will see. Atheism even at its most extreme is only a response to theism: no theism, then no atheism. Atheists do not believe ‘There are no gods’ as a matter of profound faith any more than a theist (or anyone else) believes with the same level of commitment that ‘There are no aliens’. The absolute crux of the matter is to recognise that the mystic’s committed and emotional belief in God, or gods, is a different species altogether from those who have no reason to believe in such; even the most ardent or strong atheists can make no claims to certainty, but are constrained by what can be empirically known and logically demonstrated. Theists by definition believe in God/gods. Atheists by definition lack such a belief-in, although they may, however, firmly believe that there are no gods (strong, or hard atheism). The distinction between the two is to be found in the theists' belief as faith, a spiritual, emotional or mystical understanding, which doesn't necessarily demand proof or evidence, while atheism (a-theism) is by the very meaning of the term applied to those without an unconditional spiritual belief in gods or a supreme being.
While theistic beliefs don’t require adherence to a particular religion they are nevertheless propositional, which it to say that something is being positively asserted. And it may be argued that sceptics too are asserting something in the form of their secular beliefs, which is true, but the fundamental difference between believer and non-believer is that theists (regardless of any specific doctrine or religious affiliation) believe in a deity from faith, without the necessity for factual evidence or a final proof. Atheists assert that those are wholly insufficient grounds for making a claim to the truth.
A lack of belief that there are no gods, who have supposedly done or supposedly will do particular things, is no different from not having the belief that there are alien species waiting to take over our planet. Beliefs of this form are not dogmatic, or necessarily sceptical, but amount to a contingently held conclusion, that is to say the believer is not compelled by any evidence to think otherwise but it is not being a asserted positively that such things are impossible.
Now I cannot see how it is possible to believe in a negative concept - and yet isn’t that exactly what those who say atheism and theism are ‘two sides of the same coin’ are supposing? Theist and atheist beliefs are differentiated by the nature of the beliefs, which are not to be analysed in terms of polar concepts. For as we’ve seen, theists don’t merely believe that there are gods: they believe in them. So they’ve gone farther than mere hypothesising. Now I personally think the Argument from Contingency, which makes the case for a necessarily existent cause of the universe, is a good one. But from that idea it would be quite wrong to infer that I believe in a necessarily existent cause. It isn’t a committed belief as faith and I award it no attributes, purpose, or metaphysical system but what is necessarily implied in the concept - and there is certainly no emotional investment involved. A belief that, in this context, is utterly different from a belief in, by which we mean a belief as faith, which is to say it is distinguished by a profound or doctrinal commitment. So a hard or strong atheist may well believe that there are no gods, while still allowing that gods are logically possible. But when do we hear theists say: ‘I believe in God, but God might not exist’. We don’t! And that of course is because one cannot logically believe in something while believing that it might not exist?
Happy New Year to All: hamster :: hamster :
