Thursday, June 7, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Atheism is the absence of belief

by Butch Bailey, Hattiesburg American

Thanks to Ronan Mehigan for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070605/OPINION01/706050342

OFTEN WHEN I hear atheism mentioned it's followed by the bewildered statement, "How can you be sure God doesn't exist?" I would like to attempt to clear up a few common misconceptions about atheism. Namely that atheism requires faith, that outspoken atheists are "fundamentalists," and that agnostics are weak or non-committal while self-professed atheists are arrogant.

Theism is an active belief in a god(s), so the lack of this belief is "a-theism." It requires no active belief, neither affirmative nor negative. It is simply the absence of a belief. In the same way Christians lack a belief in Zeus or Hindus lack a belief in Jehovah, the atheist simply lacks a god-belief in general. It is no active affirmation that a god(s) does not exist.

To quote Dr. Richard Dawkins, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." I would add that we reject belief in your god(s), whichever it happens to be, for essentially the same reasons you reject all those others: because the onus is on the believer to provide proof for their assertion.

Atheism, being the complete lack of any document or dogma, can never be fundamental. It has no core belief to be fundamental to.

What an atheist can be however, is passionate. Passionate about the horrible wastefulness of religion, the retarding of scientific inquiry fundamentalism inevitably demands and the dangerous tribalism it always foments.

When one stands up and says that faith is a dangerous thing that mankind would be better off without, he may be speaking passionately and you may find his words offensive, but this doesn't place him in the same category as the radical Muslim and Christian fundamentalists who actively try to force their beliefs on society.

Atheists and religious fundamentalists are not simply opposite ends of the same spectrum with agnostics falling somewhere in the middle. Agnostic/gnostic deals with a different question altogether. It asks, "Can the existence of a god(s) ever be truly known?" While fundamentalists are by definition gnostic on this question, there are many theists who are agnostic yet still believers. The atheist is not making a definitive declaration about the existence of god(s) at all, but merely stating he or she lacks a belief in one, so most would be agnostic-atheists.

Does the fact that the atheist admits we can never prove god(s) doesn't exist weaken our position? Hardly. I can't be certain that a meteor isn't going to fall from the sky and kill me when I walk out of my house.

But without some proof that there is a significant chance this will happen, I don't allow this lack of proof to affect my daily life. I may be technically agnostic, but practically atheist about getting brained by a meteor.

Atheism is not only a viable alternative to faith, it is, I believe, the most probable, most promising, and most positive view of life.

Butch Bailey is a forester who lives in Hattiesburg. His e-mail is timberbeast@ gmail.com

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, June 7, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 36 of 36 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #48299 by graham513 on June 7, 2007 at 11:06 am

"Atheism is not only a viable alternative to faith, it is, I believe, the most probable, most promising, and most positive view of life."

Here, here.

Other Comments by graham513

2. Comment #48359 by isaone on June 7, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Hallelujah, someone publically telling it like it is !

Testify Brother, testify..

Seriously though I appreciate the factual and correct definitions he uses. (A)Gnostic or not is not an alternative to (A)Theism it is another dimension entirely. Just as a person's eye color does not effect their height, their BELIEF concerning God is not hardwired to their KNOWLEGE!

Other Comments by isaone

3. Comment #48368 by GodlessHeathen on June 7, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Mmmm. Is like a literary pudding.

We need far more of this sort of thing being printed in papers all about the world.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

4. Comment #48372 by Steven Mading on June 7, 2007 at 3:40 pm

"Atheism is not only a viable alternative to faith, it is, I believe, the most probable, most promising, and most positive view of life."

As an atheist, in all honesty I have to disagree with how this point is put forth, as it contradicts the main point of the article. If atheism is a non-belief, then it isn't a view of life. Nor is it promising. It does throw away religion, which is a source of having a negative view of life so it's good to ditch it. But it does not guarantee a positive outlook will be adopted instead. It merely opens the way to choose another view of life instead of the negative one espoused by religion. It's still entirely possible to fall into a negative view of life for secular reasons, however.

To give an analogy, while it's good for an alchoholic to stop drinking, refraining from drinking is not a positive quality in their life, it's merely the removal of one negative one.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

5. Comment #48408 by BigJohn on June 7, 2007 at 7:14 pm

" Atheism is the absence of belief."

Why is this such a difficult concept for so many people? When I tell people that I am an atheist(a rare occasion here, deep in the Bible Belt)I generally get a response like this, 'Oh, so, you believe that there is no god.'. I explain that this is not a correct statement. I say I do not believe, I have no faith. But no one can understand the difference between belief and lack of belief. They are so inured with the idea that one must believe in something, anything, that they cannot absorb the concept of non-belief.

Other Comments by BigJohn

6. Comment #48412 by ? on June 7, 2007 at 7:24 pm

"If atheism is a non-belief, then it isn't a view of life."
--Steven Mading

Yes, I think we should all have some term(s) to describe what we ARE as opposed to what we are not. It would, of course, differ according to the individual atheist. Mine would probably be "humanist"(with some existentialist, Zen and Unitarian influence) though I have mixed feelings about organized Humanism.

Militant theist types enjoy presenting "atheist" as some sort of primary identity.

So the fact that you and Stalin are both atheists means you have a lot in common with Stalin. The fact that 90-95% of Americans AREN'T atheists means that you have nothing in common with most Americans.

Of course, this is pure sophistry. The truth is that human beings belong to many categories. We share some of them in common with theists and and some of them we don't.

Other Comments by ?

7. Comment #48415 by bouwe on June 7, 2007 at 8:11 pm

An article like this needs to be published in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, etc. and in circulation throughout the major papers -- instead, it appears in the Hattiesburg American! Instead, the N.Y. Times publishes the insane views of someone like Brownback.

People seem to be hard-wired to think in a way which is the opposite to logical thinking. You have to repeat the definition of atheism over and over again...and people still can't quite grasp it. The lack of a belief is still interpreted as a "belief". It is simply a ground-clearing operation, enabling more fruitful beliefs to take root. I repeat this to those closest to me and they say "I understand -- don't go on about it -- I get it!!" Then the next time it comes up, they say something which demonstrates that they in fact do NOT "get it" and continue to misunderstand. It is very frustrating. If those closest to me can't get their heads around it, then it is no wonder the rest of the world doesn't either. Human beings are, as Bigjohn says, inured with a belief in belief .

Other Comments by bouwe

8. Comment #48426 by Zaphod on June 7, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Atheism isn't a view of life.

Atheists for the most part tend to have a metaphysical naturalistic view of life (if you leave out Buddhists and the likes).

A lot of atheists subscribe to secular humanism. This is why the Brights movement was started. It is a humanistic and naturalistic view of life. Also the brights name tries to get away from the religious and false negative stigma attached to atheism.

A follow the same mode of thought as most Bright's but I call myself an atheist.

My world view would be metaphysical naturalism.

Other Comments by Zaphod

9. Comment #48427 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 11:20 pm

I just had a look at the from page of Wikipedia, and by coincidence (or did the FSM make is so?), the lead article is atheism. And I pretty much concur with that definition...Bugger! Now I've said that some theist will edit it and it'll be defined as the belief in the non existence of god. The FSM truly works in noodly ways.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

10. Comment #48435 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 12:55 am

Atheism may not be a view of life, but as Dawkins puts it so well, an atheist can have a very fulfilling life:

Richard Dawkins expresses this viewpoint on page 1 of The God Delusion:

I suspect � well, I am sure � that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness � raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is an realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.

bitbutter has announced the launch of his website:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

A stable of writers, mostly posters here at Dawkins.net, answer questions posed by theists. If you have any feedback or would like to join this stable of atheist answerers, then use the contact info at:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

or

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16395

I also consider this site to be a handy resource for atheists, who when debating either online on in person, can use the answers as at least a stepping stone from which they can launch their own debate. For example, I just hopped to the site and pulled out this quote above from Dawkins.

Other Comments by Logicel

11. Comment #48441 by Firefly on June 8, 2007 at 1:27 am

Wow! It takes guts to write something like this in a newspaper in Hattiesburg, Mississippi and sign your name to it. Bravo!

Other Comments by Firefly

12. Comment #48488 by ButchB on June 8, 2007 at 6:41 am

Thanks for the kind words everyone, including those who disagreed with a point or two. I feel like I've hit the big time getting my little column posted to Dawkin's website � I'm a fan.

The Hattiesburg American has been very supportive of my columns and you may be surprised to hear that the people down here in the Bible Belt have, for the most part, been very supportive. The emails I've gotten in the past few months have been largely supportive and I've been extremely encouraged by the number of like-minded freethinkers in my area. Even those who've disagreed with me have almost all been polite and courteous in their disagreements.

Butch

Other Comments by ButchB

13. Comment #48519 by the great teapot on June 8, 2007 at 8:32 am

I believe there is no god. What am I?

Other Comments by the great teapot

14. Comment #48529 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2007 at 9:23 am

my worldview lacks any supernatural elements and that include god. It is quite useful, before I honestly thought 'this is all nonsense' i could be spooked if alone at night and wonder if that noise was a ghost (or at least that thought entered my mind temporarily), now if i hear a bang upstairs im quite confident its NOT a ghost and will make the assumption that something fell or theres a real flesh and blood entity in my house (human or rat perhaps) but it is rather more adaptive than wasting time wondering if my home is haunted. admittedly i do like good ghost stories, and thats because they are 'good' and at their best are well crafted pieces of art.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

15. Comment #48537 by pewkatchoo on June 8, 2007 at 9:56 am

It looks like I have stirred up a bit of controversy over at the DT. Poor old Deedsie must be shaking in his shoes with rage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=WZUGDOWSFU2YRQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/06/08/do0803.xml

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

16. Comment #48540 by Benjamin Michael on June 8, 2007 at 10:15 am

13. Comment #48519 by the great teapot on June 8, 2007 at 8:32 am

"I believe there is no god. What am I?"

Anti-theist?
Non-theist?

Other Comments by Benjamin Michael

17. Comment #48549 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 10:42 am

Pewkatchoo, Kudos. I see nothing in your comment that would deserve the responses it got.

This nonsense that the parents resorted to is no different than if they went to a medium, and yet there will be religious believers and also non-believers that will defend this behavior because it comforts, is a boon, it would be inconsiderate, impolite, rude, etc. to do otherwise. Of course, they can believe whatever they want to believe, but they are not immune from criticism just because they have religious beliefs even though they have lost a child.

Supporters of religious superstitions are so coddled, they can't be criticized even in less serious situations, forget about a situation like this one. Piety, faith, acceptance of terrible events as God's will, etc., are to be criticized strongly for the irrational nonsense it is. Such criticism is long overdue.

Personally, for me, this kind of publicity, which may help to find lost persons, is also weird--almost like voyeurism. In addition, this focusing on just one missing person, instead of the general problem of missing people all over the world is also unpalatable to me. But then again, I am just a Godless heathen.

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #48551 by pewkatchoo on June 8, 2007 at 10:58 am

Thanks Logicel. To be fair I did get some support as well. The only downside is that it raises my profile and it is quite easy for people to find out who I actually am. I don't exactly make a secret of it. This will not stop me from being equally critical in the future. But I do wonder just how far people might take things sometimes.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

19. Comment #48553 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 11:12 am

"I believe there is no god. What am I?"

I concur with Ben. Non-theist.

All new born babies don't believe in x but one can't say they believe there is no x, so "atheist" is not strictly the answer to The Great Teapot's question.

Other Comments by Rtambree

20. Comment #48555 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 11:16 am

pewkatchoo, I hear you. We all need to be smart and cautious. However, as more and more of us become openly critical--as one poster here said--it will be harder for us to become targets, because there will just be too many of us to track down--strength in numbers kind of protection.

Other Comments by Logicel

21. Comment #48564 by devolved on June 8, 2007 at 11:56 am

'If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents�the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts�i.e. of materialism and astronomy�are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.'

C.S. Lewis (1898�1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.

Other Comments by devolved

22. Comment #48574 by the great teapot on June 8, 2007 at 12:30 pm

yes that is right devolved and that is why religion is shit.

Other Comments by the great teapot

23. Comment #48580 by devolved on June 8, 2007 at 1:05 pm

A man came to me after a seminar and said, 'Actually, I'm an atheist. Because I don't believe in God, I don't believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can't even be sure of reality.' I responded, 'Then how do you know you're really here making this statement?' 'Good point,' he replied. 'What point?' I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, 'Maybe I should go home.' I stated, 'Maybe it won't be there.' 'Good point,' the man said. 'What point?' I replied.

Other Comments by devolved

24. Comment #48583 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 1:13 pm

23. Comment #48580 by devolved

:) Good one! The things you can do with language. It's one of homo sapien's best inventions but it's not perfect - it doesn't quite map onto reality (e.g. dichotomies versus continuums, counterintuitive thinking arising out of probabilities and statistics), allowing for these semantic convolutions.

Other Comments by Rtambree

25. Comment #48590 by the great teapot on June 8, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Devolved.
Why were you at a seminar?

Other Comments by the great teapot

26. Comment #48696 by ? on June 8, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Sounds like the person Devolved talked to was some kind of extreme postmodernist. He should be aware that this type of thinking is routinely criticized by Dawkins and other freethinkers as just another irrational dogma.

Other Comments by ?

27. Comment #48788 by GordonHide on June 9, 2007 at 3:44 am

A short, clear and well argued article spoiled by the last line.

"Atheism is not only a viable alternative to faith, it is, I believe, the most probable, most promising, and most positive view of life."

If atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods how can it ever be an alternative to faith which generally involves many beliefs, a set of moral values, often a faith community and common rituals and traditions.

Gordon Hide.

Other Comments by GordonHide

28. Comment #48798 by gimlibengloin on June 9, 2007 at 4:43 am

What total GARBAGE!!

Atheism means 'No - God'

The 'A' indicates the NEGATIVE and 'theist' refers to GOD THEREFORE an ATHEIST is one who says there is NO GOD.

In regard to AGNOSTICISM: A is the NEGATIVE and GNOSTIC refers to KNOWLEDGE. The agnostic is one who DOESN'T KNOW.

Notce the hilarious contradiction at the end of the above article:

"Atheism is not only a viable alternative to faith, it is, I believe, the most probable, most promising, and most positive view of life."

The writer asserts atheism is a "POSITIVE" VIEW OF LIFE despite spending the article trying to convince us that it affirms nothing.

DOH!!!

Kind regards, GBG

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

29. Comment #48807 by pewkatchoo on June 9, 2007 at 5:35 am

Oh devolved you are so clever. I wish I could think of things to say like that on the spur of the moment. It's a shame that you are talking bollox.

Admit it, there was no man. It was all in your little head. Do you really think that the people in this site are so stupid? This existential argument is as old as the hills.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

30. Comment #48841 by BillySands on June 9, 2007 at 7:08 am

Hows the dinosaur hunting going devolved/GMB? I was playing about with a cacharodontosaurus tooth earlier - unfortunately it is of no use to you as it is 110 million years old
Pewkatchoo, support given - i used an anti inflammatory alias :-) Seems devolved needs to think life must have a meaning

Other Comments by BillySands

31. Comment #48855 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 7:51 am

teapot:

I believe there is no god. What am I?

This came up in the McGrath thread. I think you're an atheist. I like the definition "lacking belief in god(s)," which you fit.

Sometimes people want to divide atheists into those who don't believe by default, and those who've examined theistic propositions and found them wanting. I'd use the term "naive atheist" for the former, if context makes the distinction necessary.

Theists often argue that atheism is an active belief. Thus they don't want the term "atheism" to include default non-believers. But the burden of proof rests upon the theist. The default position must be atheism.

As a negative, atheism logically can't champion social causes. It can't serve as a philosophy of life or politics. Secularism fits the bill, although secularism doesn't require or promote atheism per se. Many atheists wish others were atheists and find mere secularism uninspiring.

Organizationally, we're in a bit of a pickle. I think that's why this web site has been busy. People are trying to figure out how to translate our many shared values into something with political impact.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

32. Comment #49278 by ColourOutofSpace on June 11, 2007 at 10:05 am

devolved: Interesting argument from C. S. Lewis you bring up. If I remember correctly, he uses a similar line of thinking early on in his book "Miracles" (a clever, well-written bit of sophistry) as his reason for rejecting Naturalism and embracing Supernaturalism. His point is summed up well in one of the lines you quoted: "I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents." Clearly put, but easily refuted. Stated briefly, natural selection (i.e. brute necessity) ensures that all emergent forms of consciousness must be able to form accurate mental pictures of the outside world if they wish to survive. Why should we expect conscious beings with inaccurate conceptions of their surrounding physical reality to be here anyway, seeing what a liability that would have been for purposes of survial? I'm not sure how much Lewis understood about evolution, but it's clear he was not able to see how natural selection undercuts this argument of his.

Other Comments by ColourOutofSpace

33. Comment #49282 by steve99 on June 11, 2007 at 11:01 am

Actually, I'm an atheist. Because I don't believe in God, I don't believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can't even be sure of reality

Well, that fellow is simply incorrect in his reasoning. He is confusing "I don't believe in God, and I also don't believe in absolutes" with "I don't believe in God, therefore I don't believe in absolutes". There is nothing about being an atheist that of necessity leads to those other beliefs.

Other Comments by steve99

34. Comment #49283 by steve99 on June 11, 2007 at 11:07 am

But if their thoughts�i.e. of materialism and astronomy�are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?

Even if this were true about thoughts (and I would say that it is not, as thoughts are anything but accidental by-product - thoughts and their effects have almost certainly been a key factor in recent evolution), the conclusion does not follow. The reason is science. We may arrive at a hypothesis by accident, but the subsequent experiments and results are not accidental. Our thoughts about, for example, astronomy have been refined by centuries of non-accidental study and experiment.

Other Comments by steve99

35. Comment #49285 by ghostbuster on June 11, 2007 at 11:29 am

Sounds to me that these arguments about the nature of reality sound like that old "everything's relative" stance. Ain't so. Simon Conway Morris also has a different perspective on "accidental" evolution. It simply isn't accidental; it follows the rules of physics, chemistry and mathematics; who makes the rules? Nobody, they just are. In fact, new theory implies the universe(s) are eternal, backwards and forwards, which probably means there isn't anything really new under the stars. It just is.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

36. Comment #49286 by krogercomplete on June 11, 2007 at 11:49 am

devolved,

Just to clarify, are you making a first cause/prime mover type argument or do you believe that God must be constantly involved in the everyday activities of the universe for them to not be accidental?

Other Comments by krogercomplete

Reload Comments | Back to Top