The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is *NOT* A Belief

By Daniel Miessler on March 11th, 2007: Tagged as Atheism | Language | Logic | Religion

One of the common arguments from Christians is that atheism is a belief analogous to their own belief in God. The implication, of course, is that both are therefore equally reasonable. Unfortunately, the debate can’t even start without resolving the meaning of atheism itself.

I don’t claim to be able to resolve this very complicated issue in a single post, but I believe we as a community should standardize on one meaning. What follows is my idea of what that definition should be, along with my reasons for thinking so. Atheism The lack of belief in gods as they are conceptualized in human civilization. This is not a proclamation of divine knowledge, i.e. that in all possible existences an atheist is positive that nothing like a God exists, anywhere. That would be stupid. The word is used (or should be) to describe a lack of belief in the Gods that are worshiped throughout our world. It’s a practical definition, based on the theistic reality we interact with every day.

History + Practicality

Let me try and back that up a little bit. Consider the fact that atheism came after theism. It’s a response to people believing in something. It didn’t come about by itself. It’s not something on its own; it’s the lack of something. That something is belief.

To view atheism as a belief in itself would require us to create many other such words to describe other “positive non-beliefs”. Dragons, for example. If we are to subscribe to the atheism as a belief concept then we’re going to need to explicitly label those who don’t believe in dragons. Oh, and the Easter bunny too.

Who would go around actively disbelieving in the infinite number of things that are preposterous? Here’s one of my favorite quotes on the matter:

If atheism is a belief then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I don’t know who came up with that one, but here’s mine:
When you knock over an empty glass you don’t spill non-water all over the table. And you don’t then proceed to clean up the non-water using paper towels designed to remove non-water, non-juice, and non-soda. You just do nothing because there wasn’t anything in the glass.
Beliefs are the same. You either have a belief in something or you don’t, and if you don’t then you simply don’t. It would be asinine to enumerate the trillions of things you don’t believe in and then consider those your beliefs. And that’s really what we’re being asked to accept with an “positive” belief model for atheism…that each ludicrous thing we come across must be actively disbelieved.

I just don’t think that’s the case, but I look forward to hearing from anyone who disagrees. I’d love to see another perspective on this.:

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • description
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Viewing 35 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Sorry for furthering the argument, because it seems your mind is set, but I felt like I had to chime in.

    If someone was raised on an island by two parents who never mentioned the concept of god, they would be an atheist, and it wouldn't be a belief.

    However, in this case, they (and I) are choosing not to believe in god. To use your example against you, if you a fervently against collecting stamps as a hobby, that certainly is a belief system, although it's conscious opposition as opposed to conscious acceptance.

    "Who would go around actively disbelieving in dragons? It’s not active, it’s not a belief that dragons don’t exist; it’s the lack of belief that they do."

    If a majority of the population believed in dragons, you were one of the few vocal opponents of belief in dragons, and people wrote whole books on the subject of the ingrained belief of dragons in our society, than I would argue that we are actively disbelieving in dragons, rather than just lacking belief.

    However, in the end, no matter who is right, does it really matter whether atheism falls under the constrictions of one word in the english language or not? It's like arguing over whether your walls are burgundy or maroon, there is a right or wrong answer, but the means to determine the answer far outweigh the importance of the issue itself, or even the satisfaction one would gain by being proven right.
    • ^
    • v
    "Atheism - The lack of belief in gods as they are conceptualized in human civilization. This is not a proclamation of divine knowledge, i.e. that in all possible existences an atheist is positive that nothing like a God exists, anywhere. That would be stupid. The word is used (or should be) to describe a lack of belief in the Gods that are worshiped throughout our world. It’s a practical definition, based on the theistic reality we interact with every day."

    Call me stupid then.

    I disagree with the source of your definition, and in case you are the source, I disagree with you.

    That point where you are not at all convinced in anything, and you proclaim that you will believe anything given proof but don't actively seek that proof. That point where you fear everything that has to do with belief, because you feel a vehement need to distance yourself from it. That point where you challenge the world to prove to you that there is something out there, hoping in secret that no one steps up to the challenge, because they might have something to say that will shake the foundation of your world. Search yourself. Be honest with yourself, now. That point, where you are now, Daniel, is agnosticism.

    It is a local maximum. It is a high energy point. It's like a ball balanced impossibly at the top of a mountain, where all other options lead to faith and belief in something. You, my friend, are balanced at that point, and since it is a very unstable point you are exerting a lot of energy to maintain that point. You are always fighting against the inevitable pull of gravity.

    It is not an easy point to reach, and I congratulate you for reaching this point. You had to fight and win against the values that have been infused in you since you were born, against your surrounding, against people who believe in objective truth, against a hoard of people yelling merry Christmas to you and scaring you on Halloween and telling you tales of the easter bunny and the tooth fairy and sin and hell and redemption and atonement. You've done all that. Now it's time to

    STOP

    close your eyes, and see, Daniel.

    You are at the vista now. You can see what lies beneath. It is time to make your choice and decide which way down is best for you. While staying up there is an option, it is also very difficult and not effective for the long run. Search yourself. What do you feel? It's your choice now. I recommend you make it.

    I've made my choice. I'm an Atheist. I believe that there is no deity. It is true for me. I do not question this belief, beyond an academic discussion. It is the basis on which I build my life, every day when I wake up and when I lay myself to sleep. And I sleep easy. I don't need to worry about balancing at that fickle point where gusts of wind threaten to sway me this way or that. I am grounded. I've left that mountain and walked along the path I have consciously chosen. I know the mountain is there. I've been there. It has been a hell of a journey, pun not intended. Being a believer has the advantage of packing all those questions about life and meaning and treating them as solved.

    Oh, I don't pretend that they are solved. Belief is a tool to deal with them in a consistent manner. I've been up there and I know that they are not "solved". It's just that dealing with them does not bother me on a daily basis. I have my answers for now. My own, personal, subjective truth.

    Having walked that path and seen what you see serves me for I know that there is no one objective truth. Everyone has their own. Knowing that lets me interact with people of different beliefs and faiths, because I respect them as human beings and ones that have a right to their belief, even though it differs from mine. I also find myself in conflict with other people at times. It is invariably at the point where they believe that their truth is objective and that they in some way try to force it on me.

    So, Daniel, my belief is a belief (ouch). It is not a lack of belief. It's not not-collecting-stamps or not drinking from the empty glass. Those metaphors are broken, because they describe a linear scale from 0 to n, and I'm talking about a vector field where 0 is lack of belief and there are vectors in all directions, which stand for the myriad of beliefs that exist. You can still believe as strongly as your fellow man and have opposite opinions.

    I wish for you, Daniel, that you find your path.

    Take care,

    -- Arik
    • ^
    • v
    I think I'm going to take Daniel's side on this one, with one correction. I don't think atheism is a response to theism, I think it was just a fall-back position. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist.

    It brings to mind a discussion I've had with numerous people over the words amoral and immoral. An amoral act is one that is passively not moral, whereas an immoral act is one that is actively against some moral code.

    Think of three guys involved in a robbery. The immoral one is the criminal, who performs the robbery -- he's actively breaking the law. The amoral one just sits and watches -- he doesn't break the law, but he does nothing to stop it. The moral one is the guy on the phone calling 911 -- he's acting to stop the crime.

    The prefixed 'a' in the word "atheist" leaves me to believe (grammatically) that it is more like the word "amoral" in that it isn't an active belief against a god, it's just the lack of belief in a god.
    • ^
    • v
    > If someone was raised on an island by two parents who never mentioned the concept of god, they would be an atheist, and it wouldn’t be a belief. However, in this case, they (and I) are choosing not to believe in god. To use your example against you, if you a fervently against collecting stamps as a hobby, that certainly is a belief system, although it’s conscious opposition as opposed to conscious acceptance.

    See, I don't think it changes at all based on how many people believe in the preposterous thing. Why would it matter? We simply don't believe in these things, regardless of who agrees or disagrees. Our lack of belief does not change based on opposition.
    • ^
    • v
    "If someone was raised on an island by two parents who never mentioned the concept of god, they would be an atheist, and it wouldn’t be a belief."

    This argument presupposes that children blindly accept what they're told for life. To illustrate how this cannot logically be supported, let's reverse it. How many people raised by deeply religious parents go on to question the basis of the teachings they have received as children? I'm sure you yourselves know a few who have.

    How many of those children were raised in environments that were consciously controlled by the parents to be as close to the 'island' you refer to in an ideological sense? Same answer, isn't it?

    I'd suggest that you google up the biography for 'Roy Harper', or look at some 'Atheist Eve' cartoons to get a feel for what the 'island' upbringing does to young minds in the real world. the assumption that a child raised in this manner could not, nor would not question their received wisdom cannot be used to support your agrument.
    • ^
    • v
    > That point, where you are now, Daniel, is agnosticism.

    No, it's atheism -- just atheism in a practical sense. Modern atheism, if you will. Strong atheism (which is what you're talking about) requires either faith or omniscience. I have neither.

    Sitting on a rock floating through space when we can't even really explain how light or gravity works is not a good position to be "sure" about what "definitely" does or does not exist -- ANYWHERE in ANY existence. Or, to put it another way, I don't claim to know what is -- only what *isn't*, with respect to the gods that have been manifested throughout the course of human civilization.

    Agnostics don't just lack belief; they actually aren't sure about whether or not they should. They're weary of committing to a lack of belief, for whatever reason. I, on the other hand, am quite sure that I lack belief in earthly gods. That's why I'm an atheist, and not an agnostic. Agnostics, in my opinion, are believers who haven't mustered the strength to completely let go.

    But that only applies to earthly gods. Once we start talking about what set the big bang into motion, I (along with most other intelligent people) am most definitely agnostic. That is to say that when it comes to the nature of the universe before time and space is unknown to me, and may be unknowable. We just have to admit at that point that we don't have any information, and that virtually everything is a possibility (except for simple, earthly theist explanations).
    • ^
    • v
    This sounds superfluous and at most unfounded. You say the belief (belief just means you believe something) in lack of gods is not acceptable because to you, it makes no sense. But then why do people say things such as Christianity are beliefs? Christians believe in something that may or may not exist but atheists just outright say it doesn't and both can willingly believe this. /You/ can believe whatever you want, no one is making you accept atheism as a belief, or dragonism for that matter.

    What you should be pointing out that makes no sense is agnostic atheism. That's just something dumb right there.
    • ^
    • v
    You confuse religion with belief.
    I believe that there is no God. That is what I believe. I don't lack any belief on the subject, I lack a positive belief in the existence of god. To say that I just have no belief in it either way is absurd.

    However, atheism is not a religion. We don't congregate or organize (if we do, it is to do things that don't involve religion and we just happen to all be atheist). WE have no structure to our belief that god doesn't exist.

    Belief is a mental state with either a poisitive or negative value. Not beieving in dragons or magic or God is a negative belief for me. Religion is an organizational strucuture based on the positive belief in a God or other supernatural being. And all religions share some such positive belief You observe your religion, not your belief. Any of your behavior regarding your belief has been instated by your religion.



    As for there being religion before there was atheism, that's tricky ground. I believe the universe is more than a few thousand years old and that belief in god is a human creation. Therefore, belief in God couldn't've shown up before the arrival of humans or their ancestor. If you belief that god created adam and eve, then you'll think that religion came first, because God has always existed in your opinion.


    i'm not going to make any attempt to disprove your beliefs, but i will say that biologically all thinking creatures are predisposed to belief in religion. This is because learning is a prediction of cause and effect. In general, God is an explanation for that which is hard to explain through logic. We use God to explain why the sun rises, where we go when we die, the point of life, and how the brain (or soul) works. We don't use God to explain why a lightbulb turns on or how a carburator works. When the effect is difficult to explain, that's where God comes in to play. Since many pre-human animals can learn, and thus create mental explanations for things they don't understand, it is conceivable to me that religion does predate mankind.
    • ^
    • v
    Atheism is not a belief. It is a position based on evidence. Everything we know about the world is inconsistent with the hypothesis of a superhuman being that controls everything.

    Theism is a belief, contrary to the evidence. People who believe in God will say, with pride mind you, that it's a matter of having faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Well, I wish them joy of their God. But don't call me stupid.
    • ^
    • v
    >> Atheism is not a belief. It is a position based on evidence
    What evidence? How can there be evidence that God does not exist? Is there similar evidence that other invisible, massless things dont exist?

    >> hypothesis of a superhuman being that controls everything
    Huh? What religion are you referring to? There is a secular religion that denies free-will and says that everything we say and do is already pre-determined by the laws of physics, but it doesnt have any superhuman beings. Im not sure about you, but im confident that i have free-will.

    >> even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    Again, what overwhelming evidence is there? Evolution? Im a firm Christian, yet i believe that there is plenty of evidence that, when viewed from a certain standpoint, shows evolution. What other "evidence" are you referring to?

    Also, one of the definitions of a religion is a "personal belief persued with zeal". Athiesm is a personal belief, and if there was no zeal involved then why are you writing a blog entry about it? All you have to do is check amazon.com for books. Theres over 100 books listed for atheism. I didnt see any books for "no Santa Clause" or "No Dragons". I understand that athiests dont like being categorized as a religion (or belief) because my closest friend is an athiest (actually, hes more agnostic than anything). Here are the technical definitions:
    theist - firmly believes in God (or gods) with minimal doubt.
    athiest - firmly believes in no God without any doubt.
    agnostic - everything in between. May be a God, may not be, basically unsure.

    --Brett
    • ^
    • v
    The problem with this stance is that it assumes what it seeks to prove.

    You have to start with the data: human experience. A sense of self (possibly an illusion, for both mystical and neuroscience reasons) and a sense of a world (frequently reenforced by people around us who insist that they exist and experience as we do.)

    Given those facts, the question is "now what?" Athesist look at it and say "we rule out this class of explanations based on our experience and that of previous generations of scientists etc."

    Which is fair enough, apart from there are a couple of key questions unanswered: why is there something rather than nothing, and why are things the way they are? The extreme shakiness of cosmology, the lack of a decent explanation of such obvious pheonema as "mass" etc. are all problems on a par with "so, why if saints require miracles to be cannonized, can't we have a couple of proto-saints come into the lab and settle this once and for all?"

    It's just different areas of ignorance.

    Now, just because Science is incomplete and doesn't have answers to some fundamental questions like mass (for example - pick your area!) doesn't mean that Christianity is right: one system has a lot more explanatory power than the other, but neither has a complete model of what is going on.

    The only valid stance is agnosticism: all available models fall short of explaining the phenomena we are aware of, and can only be regarded as partial. To abruptly rule out any explanation - rather than simply stipulating that evidence would be required - is grossly unscientific.

    Of course, a Christian can point at the existence of the world or the universe and say "this proves that god exists."

    Ain't no accounting for how people color their null set.
    • ^
    • v
    Im not sure that science and religion should be compared as apples to apples. The burden of science is to find out how things work and try to reconstruct the past to see where it came from (eg. heavy elements came from fusion reactions, etc). The burden of religion is to answer "why are we here". Science has almost no data or tests that show the existance of human emotion or sentience, yet these are things that we know exist. This isnt a downfall to science, it just means that its in an area outside sciences range. Granted, they can scan and see areas of the brain that become active when we are scared or happy, but they have no idea why we get the "butter flies" in our stomachs when we are nervous or why we even have a happy or sad emotion although some of them try to conjure up some feable explaination. Science is a secular discipline, and rightfully so. Would you like to hear your airline pilot say "just have faith that the engines will work?" I tend to like knowing that there is solid science behind it (Unless God Himself built the engine). This doesnt mean that i dont believe in God any less. Anyway, thats the way i see this world from my eyes. Maybe im right, maybe im wrong. The only way to know for sure is to die, and i dont plan on doing that anytime soon. At least, when i die, if im wrong then i will never know it. (grin)

    --Brett
    • ^
    • v
    Brett asks: "What evidence? How can there be evidence that God does not exist? Is there similar evidence that other invisible, massless things dont exist?"

    The claim is that God not only exists, but created the universe and everything in it. Big Bang cosmology does not invoke any supernatural creator, and explains the observational evidence, like the microwave background radiation, or the composition of the primordial universe. Closer to home, we have a pretty accurate model of the formation of the solar system, consistent with observations of other stars and planetary systems around them. Again, no God there.

    You see, it's not a matter of proving a negative, which of course can't be done. The real test is this: Given everything we know about the universe, which explanation fits the facts?

    It's like Groucho Marx said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
    • ^
    • v
    Is it not enough to simply say you are non-religious? Being non-religious does not require you to consider any of the concepts described by religion at all. Therefore you can ignore all of these pointless labels theist, atheists, agnostics blaa blaa blaa. They all originate from mumbo jumbo religion in the first place.
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you for your efforts, Daniel. Commonly used and published definitions are indeed unfortunately insufficient and downright inaccurate. If I had my way, dictionary editors/publishers/compilers would rigorously apply the same standard that they apply to each and every OTHER a- prefixed word. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no intellectually respectable reason why a different standard _IS_ applied.

    I agree that atheism is a lack of belief--or better yet, a state of being WITHOUT theism. However, I prefer to describe my position without using the religiously-loaded words: belief, believe, and faith when there are other perfectly good words which better describe it. I ACCEPT my position of atheism, rather than believe in it (whoops, I used the word, but you know what I mean)--I accept it conditionally. To Richard and Arik who choose not to believe in a god, I say that I don't share their apparent acceptance of gods as the default position. There is no need to actively seek gods any more than there is a need to seek out anything else for which there is no data. Do they busy themselves actively seeking the Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH)? ;-)

    To Arik and Vinay I say that being atheistic and agnostic are not mutually exclusive positions. I am without theism AND I am without knowledge (a gnostic) of any gods. Furthermore, EVERYONE is atheistic (and agnostic) about someone else's god(s). (Have you ever met anyone who claimed to believe in every god ever posited by anyone anywhere?)
    Carol
    in Wisconsin
    • ^
    • v
    Interesting...
    • ^
    • v
    Your definition presents problems because it attempts to deny absolute knowledge and belief at the same time. This is a logical contradiction. In the absence of absolute, or at least empirical knowledge, belief is all that's left.

    The analogy with collecting stamps and hobbies is a simpel category error because hobbies and beliefs are two different kinds of things. If one does not believe in some particular idea, theology, or philosophy, they necessarily believe something else, even if by omission. Hobbies are specific absolute activities. Beliefs are positions about general things, usually competing ideas. Saying one does not believe in God is logically the same as saying that one believes there is no God. The lack of absolute certainty only confirms this as a belief.

    To be sure you are to be commended for recognizing the absurdity of pretending absolute certitude in regards to the non-existence of God. This is a mistake many atheists do make, relying on perception, experience, and empiricism to generalize a universal concept from limited experience. This allows you to be open to possibilities.

    The next step is recognizing that atheism is a belief system, one contingent on secular attitudes and free for the most part from religiously-derived ritual (but not without some secular versions of ritual in certain cases, confirmation of socialization in the form of group meetings, a body of music and writings, and other elements that mirror religiousity).

    Without a rational proof or demonstrated evidence, atheism can be no more than a belief system, albeit a highly materialistic one (in the philosophical rather than ethical sense). Acknowledging this allows the individual atheist the freedom to critque their own position as well as others from an intellectually honest perspective, and recognize the subjectivism that all belief systems, however true, are accompanied by.
    • ^
    • v
    Alfonz writes:

    "The claim is that God not only exists, but created the universe and everything in it. Big Bang cosmology does not invoke any supernatural creator, and explains the observational evidence, like the microwave background radiation, or the composition of the primordial universe. Closer to home, we have a pretty accurate model of the formation of the solar system, consistent with observations of other stars and planetary systems around them. Again, no God there.

    You see, it’s not a matter of proving a negative, which of course can’t be done. The real test is this: Given everything we know about the universe, which explanation fits the facts?"

    The problem with this is that theistic assertions about God as a creator are not intended in most cases (and are clearly not in the Biblical literature) to be scientific ones. This leaves a great deal of latitude in regards to scientific interpretation regarding creation. Sinmply asserting that science has all its "p"s and "q"s in order regarding the development of the universe is not a refutation of the concept that divine intelligence had some hand in it. One may argue the nature of this influence and the various proposed timelines, but the divine influence itself is a metaphysical concept.

    Thus the central problem for non-theists in this situation is that they are left with the same uncertain origins concept as theists. "The Big Bang" is a generalization of a cosmic event that for most physicists describe the beginning of measurable time, presuming that science has accounted for all phenomenon that can possibly affect these measurements. What can clearly not be accounted for are the precise moment prior to the Big Bang and what set that in motion.

    Analogies are difficult when dealing with such universally central phenomenon but consider an infant separated from their parents and raised by wolves (of which there is at least one documented case, lest someone charge me with fabulism for the sake of an argument). Without any human presence, the only logical conclusion for such a child as they grow and develop is to consider themselves a wolf, however odd-looking and hairless.

    In other words, where one cannot speak of or directly experience something, the most direct logical interpretation of materialistic experience relies solely on what is materially perceivable.

    However, if a metaphysical cause (in the extra-materialistic sense)is the true source of the phenomenon, the purely materialistic investigator is completely unequipped to discover, much less rule out this cause.

    So a scientific assessment of how the universe might have come into existence and developed is useful, but only to explain a purely materialistic universe. Even a useful concept such as Occam's Razor is of little help here because determining the simplest explanation is impossible if one of the explanations is metaphysical. Metaphysicality is not necessarily synonymous with "complexity" even though some who invoke the concept assume so.
    • ^
    • v
    Vinay Gupta writes:

    "The only valid stance is agnosticism: all available models fall short of explaining the phenomena we are aware of, and can only be regarded as partial. To abruptly rule out any explanation - rather than simply stipulating that evidence would be required - is grossly unscientific."

    While I appreciate the efforts of agnostics to remain rationally consistent, it should be pointed out that such consistency only works inside a materialistic worldview. The agnostic position is thus the more consistent version of what Daniel posits as the atheistic one, but like Daniel, Vinay disregards the validity of faith as a logical and meaningful action.

    This too presents inconsistencies. Many agnostics would ascribe to certain moral and/or ethical codes - say against murder or rape to use obvious ethical violations as an example. In the absence of a complete and empirical proof as to why such prohibitions should exist, one must rely on faith in the limi