Read an Excerpt

Atheism

The Case Against God

Prometheus Books

THE SCOPE OF ATHEISM

I. THE MYTHS OF ATHEISM

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. (Psalms 14:1)

This frequently quoted passage captures the essence of how the average religious person views atheism. Atheism is probably the least popular — and least understood — philosophical position in America today. It is often approached with fear and mistrust, as if one were about to investigate a doctrine that advocates a wide assortment of evils — from immorality, pessimism and communism to outright nihilism.

Atheism is commonly considered to be a threat to the individual and society. It is "science divorced from wisdom and the fear of God," writes one philosopher, "which the world has directly to thank for the worst evils of 'modern war'...." In a recent critique of atheism, Vincent P. Miceli claims that "every form of atheism, even the initially well intentioned, constricts, shrinks, enslaves the individual atheist within and against himself and, eventually, as atheism reaches plague proportions among men, goes on to enslave and murder society."

Through similar representations of atheism as an evil, destructive force, religionists throughout history have prescribed various forms of punishment for atheists. Plato, in his construction of the ideal state, made "impiety" a crime punishable by five years imprisonment for the first offense and death upon a second conviction. Jesus, who is offered as the paradigm of love and compassion, threatened that nonbelievers will be thrown "into the furnace of fire" where "men will weep and gnash their teeth," just as "the weeds are gathered and burned with fire...." (Matthew 13:40-42). Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval theologian, taught that "the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals," and he recommended that the heretic "be exterminated from the world by death" after the third offense.

Although the atheist now enjoys a comparative amount of freedom in the United States, the struggle for the legal rights of the atheist has been a difficult, continuous battle. For example, until the early part of this century, many states would not permit an atheist to testify in court, which meant that an atheist could not effectively file civil and criminal charges. The reasoning behind this prohibition was that, since the atheist does not believe in rewards and punishments after death, he will not feel morally obligated to tell the truth in a court of law. In 1871, the Supreme Court of Tennessee published this remarkable statement:

The man who has the hardihood to avow that he does not believe in a God, shows a recklessness of moral character and utter want of moral responsibility, such as very little entitles him to be heard or believed in a court of justice in a country designated as Christian.

Here we have the stereotype of the atheist as an insensitive, amoral cynic — a portrayal that remains widespread in our own time. Atheism, it is charged, is nothing but pure negativism: it destroys but does not rebuild. The atheist is pitted against morality itself, and the struggle between belief in a god and godlessness is viewed as a struggle between good and evil. If true, atheism is claimed to have ominous implications on a cosmic scale. A. E. Taylor expresses the fear of many theists when he writes:

... even in our hours of most complete and serenest intellectual detachment we cannot escape facing the question whether God can be eliminated from either the natural or the moral world without converting both into an incoherent nightmare.

This image of a godless world is only one among many. Atheism has become so enshrouded with myths and misconceptions that many supposed critiques of atheism are notable for their complete irrelevancy. Some religious critics prefer to attack the unpopular ideas associated with atheism rather than face the challenge of atheism directly. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find entire books with the expressed intent of demolishing atheism, but which fail to discuss such basic issues as why one should believe in a god at all. These books are content to identify atheism with specific personalities (such as Nietzsche, Marx, Camus and Sartre) and, by criticizing the views of these individuals, the religionist author fancies himself to have destroyed atheism. In most cases, however, the critic has not even discussed atheism.

Presenting the atheistic point of view is a difficult, frustrating endeavor. The atheist must penetrate the barrier of fear and suspicion that confronts him, and he must convince the listener that atheism represents, not a degeneration, but a step forward. This often requires the atheist to take a defensive position to explain why atheism does not lead to disastrous consequences. The atheist is expected to answer a barrage of questions, of which the following are typical.

Without god, what is left of morality? Without god, what purpose is there in man's life? If we do not believe in god, how can we be certain of anything? If god does not exist, whom can we turn to in a time of crisis? If there is no afterlife, who will reward virtue and punish injustice? Without god, how can we resist the onslaught of atheistic communism? If god does not exist, what becomes of the worth and dignity of each person? Without god, how can man achieve happiness?

These and similar questions reflect an intimate connection between religion and values in the minds of many people. As a result, the question of god's existence becomes more than a simple philosophical problem — and atheism, since it is interpreted as an attack on these values, assumes a significance far beyond its actual meaning. Defenses of religion are frequently saturated with emotional outbursts, and the atheist finds himself morally condemned, diagnosed as a confused, unhappy man, and threatened with a variety of future punishments. Meanwhile, the atheist's frustration increases as he discovers that his arguments for atheism are futile, that the average believer — who was persuaded to believe for emotional, not intellectual, reasons — is impervious to arguments against the existence of a supernatural being, regardless of how meticulous and carefully reasoned these arguments may be. There is too much at stake: if the choice must be made between the comfort of religion and the truth of atheism, many people will sacrifice the latter without hesitation. From their perspective, there is much more to the issue of god's existence than whether he exists or not.

Where does this leave the atheist? Must he offer atheism as an alternative way of life to religion, complete with its own set of values? Is atheism a substitute for religion? Can atheism fulfill the moral and emotional needs of man? Must the atheist defend himself against every accusation of immorality and pessimism? Does atheism offer any positive values? These questions are not as complex as they may appear. Atheism is a straightforward, easily definable position, and it is a simple task to outline what atheism can and cannot accomplish. In order to understand the scope of atheism, however, we must remove the wall of myths surrounding it — with the hope that the fears and prejudices against atheism will collapse as well. To accomplish this goal, we must determine what atheism is and what atheism is not.

II. THE MEANING OF ATHEISM

"Theism" is defined as the "belief in a god or gods." The term "theism" is sometimes used to designate the belief in a particular kind of god — the personal god of monotheism — but as used throughout this book, "theism" signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.

Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism — and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.

As here defined, the term "atheism" has a wider scope than the meanings usually attached to it. The two most common usages are described by Paul Edwards as follows:

First, there is the familiar sense in which a person is an atheist if he maintains that there is no God, where this is taken to mean that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. Secondly, there is also a broader sense in which a person is an atheist if he rejects belief in God, regardless of whether his rejection is based on the view that belief in God is false.

Both of these meanings are important kinds of atheism, but neither does justice to atheism in its widest sense. "Atheism" is a privative term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism. If we use the phrase "belief-in-god" as a substitute for theism, we see that its negation is "no-belief-in-god" — or, in other words, "a-theism." This is simply another way of stating "without theism" or the absence of belief in god.

"Theism" and "atheism" are descriptive terms: they specify the presence or absence of a belief in god. If a person is designated as a theist, this tells us that he believes in a god, not why he believes. If a person is designated as an atheist, this tells us that he does not believe in a god, not why he does not believe.

There are many reasons why one may not believe in the existence of a god: one may have never encountered the concept of god before, or one may consider the idea of a supernatural being to be absurd, or one may think that there is no evidence to support the belief in a god. But regardless of the reason, if one does not believe in the existence of a god, one is an atheist; i.e., one is without theistic belief.

In this context, theism and atheism exhaust all possible alternatives with regard to the belief in a god: one is either a theist or an atheist; there is no other choice. One either accepts the proposition "god exists" as true, or one does not. One either believes in a supernatural being, or one does not. There is no third option or middle ground. This immediately raises the question of agnosticism, which has traditionally been offered as a third alternative to theism and atheism.

III. AGNOSTICISM

The term "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869. "When I reached intellectual maturity," reports Huxley, "and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist ... I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer!" According to Huxley, exponents of these doctrines, despite their obvious differences, share a common assumption, an assumption with which he disagrees:

They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis," — had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

When Huxley joined the Metaphysical Society, he found that the various beliefs represented there had names: "most of my colleagues were -ists of one sort or another." Huxley, lacking a name for his uncertainty, was "without a rag of a label to cover himself with." He was a fox without a tail — so he gave himself a tail by assigning the term "agnostic" to himself. It seems that Huxley originally meant this term as somewhat of a joke. He selected the early religious sect known as "Gnostics" as a prime example of men who claim knowledge of the supernatural without justification; and he distinguished himself as an "agnostic" by stipulating that the supernatural, even if it exists, lies beyond the scope of human knowledge. We cannot say if it does or does not exist, so we must suspend judgment.

Since Huxley's time, "agnosticism" has acquired a number of different applications based on its etymological derivation from the negative "a" and the Greek root gnosis ("to know"). Agnosticism, as a general term, now signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area. An agnostic is a person who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human mind. When applied to the sphere of theistic belief, an agnostic is one who maintains that some aspect of the supernatural is forever closed to human knowledge.

Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.

The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.

The agnostic theist believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. The medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, is an example of this position. He believed in god, but refused to ascribe positive attributes to this god on the basis that these attributes would introduce plurality into the divine nature — a procedure that would, Maimonides believed, lead to polytheism. According to the religious agnostic, we can state that god is, but — due to the unknowable nature of the supernatural — we cannot state what god is.

Like his theistic cousin, the agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind, but this agnostic suspends his judgment one step further back. For the agnostic atheist, not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well. We cannot have knowledge of the unknowable; therefore, concludes this agnostic, we cannot have knowledge of god's existence. Because this variety of agnostic does not subscribe to theistic belief, he qualifies as a kind of atheist.

Various defenses have been offered for this position, but it usually stems from a strict empiricism, i.e., the doctrine that man must gain all of his knowledge entirely through sense experience. Since a supernatural being falls beyond the scope of sensory evidence, we can neither assert nor deny the existence of a god; to do either, according to the agnostic atheist, is to transgress the boundaries of human understanding. While this agnostic affirms the theoretical possibility of supernatural existence, he believes that the issue must ultimately remain undecided and uncertain. Thus, for the agnostic atheist, the proper answer to the question, "Does a god exist?" is "I don't know" — or, more specifically — "I cannot know."

Whether this account represents the exact position of Thomas Huxley is not entirely clear. At times, as we have seen, he seems to indicate that the existence of the supernatural, while possible, is unknowable. Elsewhere, however, he writes that "I do not very much care to speak of anything as 'unknowable.'" And in summarizing the fundamentals of agnosticism, Huxley does not refer to anything as unknowable or "insoluble."

... it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ... the application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.

This passage suggests that, in Huxley's opinion, there is not sufficient evidence to justify the belief in a god, so one should suspend judgment on this matter. In discussing whether the existence of a god is unknowable in principle or simply unknown at the present time, he writes:

What I am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing; and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But whether these things are knowable by anyone else is exactly one of those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case.

Huxley is reluctant to uphold the absolute unknowability of the supernatural, and he wishes to maintain instead that, as far as be knows, knowledge of the supernatural lies beyond the power of man's faculties. It would not be stretching the point to say that, in Huxley's view, the knowability of the supernatural is itself an issue which is unknowable.

---

Excerpted from Atheism by George H. Smith. Copyright © 1979 George H. Smith. Excerpted by permission of Prometheus Books.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---