Is Atheism a Lack of Belief?

What does it mean to be an atheist? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Recently, I had someone give me the old saying that atheism is just a lack of belief in God. I had heard it several times. Fortunately, I decided I would bring up an article I had written on that which I found….

Wait! What’s this?! I didn’t have one!

Time to take care of that oversight!

Many a times, an atheist will say they are just someone who lacks God belief. I find this to be a cowardly move as it is a way to avoid dealing with the arguments more often and put the onus on the believer entirely. After all, how can you refute it if someone says they believe or don’t believe something. Even if I met the most staunch and intellectual atheist in the world, how could he argue against the fact that I do believe in God? He could say “I 100% agree that you believe, but I just don’t think your belief is well-founded.”

So a question that arises then is “Who has the burden of proof?” The answer is simple. Whoever makes the claim has the burden. Suppose the atheist says to me “There is no God.” I ask “What’s your evidence God does not exist?” He then says to me “Well if He does, demonstrate that He does.”

Now let us suppose that I am incapable of doing that. What does that prove? It does not prove atheism. It just proves that I did not have sufficient reasons for belief. He still has asserted a belief and he still has to demonstrate it. We could easily leave with agnosticism. We do not know if He does or does not exist.

Now if I enter the debate and originally say that God does exist, I do indeed have the burden of proving my claim. If I am unable to do that, that still does not show atheism is false. It just shows my reasons were insufficient. At best, we are left with agnosticism.

So now let’s look at what atheism is. Is it the lack of belief? One of the first places I turn to is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the topic. You can find that here.

A relevant section is this part:

It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God.  Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist. Parallels for this use of the term would be terms such as “amoral,” “atypical,” or “asymmetrical.”  So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle.  Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as neither believing that God exists nor believing that God does not exist.

Unfortunately, I do not really think this part is well-written. (Would includes?) On this, I do not see any real difference between what it calls negative atheism and agnosticism. Are there any other authorities we can go to? As it turns out, yes.

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”

William Rowe The Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy p.62

“Atheism, as presented in this book, is a definite doctrine, and defending it requires one to engage with religious ideas. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives life without reference to such a being.”

Robin Le Poidevin Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion p.xvii

And

But is there anything beyond what scholars of atheism say?

An atheist should hypothetically imagine a world where God exists. In this world, the claim of theism, God exists, is true. I understand atheists do not believe that, but Aristotle is said to have said that the mark of an educated man is to be able to entertain an idea without believing in it.

Now in this same world, imagine if you are an atheist, that you are still an atheist. That is pretty easy to do. In this case, atheism is true, in the sense that you lack God belief. However, that would also mean that its opposite, theism, is also true, since the a in front of the word theism is a negation. This would mean that two contradictory statements were true, which is impossible.

Okay. So maybe you want to change theism to mean just that someone has God belief. The problem with that then is, “What are we even debating?” The terms become simply statements about personal psychology and nothing more. You can go see a therapist and talk about what you feel about something, but a therapist will likely not try to argue that you do not feel it.

Now if an atheist wants to come and debate their feelings with me, well, okay. I don’t see the point. I’d rather talk about external reality. If you’re saying atheism is just a lack of belief, you’re really saying you are not informed enough to take a stand on the issue and if that is the case, why should I even bother debating you and why should you even try to argue me out of my position?

Be real instead. Atheism is saying that God does not exist. I think it’s a wrong position, but at least we can debate it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Atheism: A Critical Analysis

What do I think of Stephen Parrish’s book published by Wipf and Stock? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Stephen Parrish has written a book that is highly philosophical, and yet at the same time, highly readable. The book is a look at the idea of atheism. Does it really stand up to scrutiny? He looks at it from a scholarly level and from a popular level both.

At the start, one gets treated to definitions. What is meant by atheism and theism? What is meant by religion and science? What is meant by the term supernatural? These are all terms that we use freely, but very rarely do we stop and ask what they mean. I am one who never uses the term supernatural thinking it is way too vague and when I get a claim such as someone talking about the evils of religion, I ask for a definition of religion.

He also deals with popular objections. Is atheism merely a lack of belief in God? What about the idea that someone is an atheist to many other gods out there. The one who identifies as an atheist just goes one god further. Sure, these are all piddly weak on the surface and the old atheists would have been embarrassed to see such arguments, but they are out there today.

Parrish’s work that presents problem areas mainly for atheism come in three categories and these can be broken down further. The first is the origin of the universe. This is an interesting topic in itself, but I am pleased to see that he goes even further and asks not only how the universe came into being but rather how does it continue in being. It’s not enough to ask why it came in the first place. Knowing how it remains here is something great to ask too.

The second area is the problem of the mind. How is it that the mind works? What is the explanation of consciousness? There are a plethora of different theories out there. Parrish works to explain the flaws in the other theories and gives a case for why theism has better explanatory power.

The last is ethics and morality. There is a subsection here on beauty as well. How is it that we live in a universe where there seem to be principles of good and evil that most people consider objective, binding, and authoritative? Could they all really be subjective?

An atheist reading this could think, “Ah. Those are issues, but surely he should discuss the issue that’s problematic for theists. The problem of evil.” He should and he does. He looks at this and a number of defenses and theodicies and then turns and says that on his argument, the problem of evil is more of a problem for the atheist than the theist.

Some of you might be wondering why I don’t spell these kinds of thoughts out even more. There’s a simple reason for that. You need to go and get the book yourself. I can’t help but think of the quote of C.S. Lewis.

“In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere — “Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,” as Herbert says, “fine nets and stratagems.” God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.”

A man wishing to remain in his atheism should also realize that this book is a trap as well. While I am far more Thomist than Parrish is in my philosophy, there is far more that I agree with than I would disagree with. Anyone who is a critical atheist needs to get this for a critical analysis of that view.

In Christ,
Nick Peters