Information AboutAtheists |
|
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of Gods . This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labeling the others as Agnostics or simply Non-theists . There is no single Ideology that all atheists share, nor are there any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. There are certain individuals whose Religious or Spiritual beliefs some might describe as atheistic, though those holding such beliefs do not normally describe themselves as atheists. Atheism includes, but is not equivalent to, the position of Antitheism , the active opposition to Theism . ETYMOLOGY In early transliterated ''atheos'' into Latin . The discussion of ''atheoi'' was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other. A.B. Drachmann (1922) notes: Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said ''atheos'' and ''atheotes''; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, ''atheos'' was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed. (p.5) In English , the term ''atheism'' is the result of the adoption of the French ''athéisme'' in about 1587. The term ''atheist'' in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves" actually predates atheism, being first attested in about 1571 (the phrase ''Italian atheoi'' is recorded as early as 1568). ''Atheist'' in the sense of practical godlessness was first attested in 1577. The French word is derived from ''athée'', "godless, atheist", which in turn is from the Greek ''atheos''. The words ''deist'' and ''theist'' entered English after ''atheism'', being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, with '' Theism '' and '' Deism '' following in 1678 and 1682, respectively. ''Deism'' and ''theism'' exchanged meanings around 1700 due to the influence of ''atheism''. ''Deism'' was originally used with a meaning comparable to today's ''theism'', and vice-versa. The Oxford English Dictionary also records an earlier irregular formation, ''atheonism'', dated from about 1534. The later and now obsolete words ''athean'' and ''atheal'' are dated to 1611 and 1612, respectively. TYPES AND TYPOLOGIES OF ATHEISM Many people have disagreed on how best to characterize atheism, and much of the literature on the subject is erroneous or confusing. There are many discrepancies in the use of terminology between proponents and opponents of atheism, and even divergent definitions among those who share near-identical beliefs. Among proponents of atheism and neutral parties, there are two major traditions in defining atheism and its subdivisions. The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe gods don't exist ('' Strong Atheism '') and those who are simply not theists ('' Weak Atheism ''). George H. Smith , Michael Martin , and (formerly) Antony Flew fall into this tradition, though they do not use the same terminology. (Flew has recently adopted a form of Deism .) The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism. Ernest Nagel , Paul Edwards and Kai Nielsen are prominent members of this camp. Using this definition of atheism, " Implicit Atheism ", lack of theism without the conscious rejection of it, may not be regarded as atheistic at all, and the umbrella term '' Nontheism '' may be used in its place. Atheism as absence of theism Among modern atheists, the view that atheism means "without polemically, "free of" theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency. This very broad definition is justified by reference to etymology as well as consistent usage of the word by atheists. However, this definition of atheism has not gone unchallenged. Although, over the last few hundred years, atheism has evolved and broadened beyond the narrow meaning of "wickedness", impiety, heresy and religious denial, as well as Pantheism and similar beliefs, it is less commonly understood to include everything not explicitly theistic. Whether a writer's definition of atheism as an "absence" or "lack" of theistic belief is in fact intended to mean "not theistic" in the widest possible sense, or just refers to particular forms of the rejection of theism (see below), is often ambiguous. According to Smith: One atheist writer who explicitly disagrees with such a broad definition is Ernest Nagel (1965): Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims. (p.460-461) For Nagel, atheism is the ''rejection'' of theism, not just the absence of theistic belief. However, this definition leaves open the question of what term can be used to describe those who lack theistic belief, but do not necessarily reject theism. The obsolete word ''atheous'', first recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary as a synonym of atheism or impiety, is sometimes used to mean "not dealing with the existence of a god" in a purely privative sense, as distinguished from the negative ''atheistic''. This 1880 coinage captures some of what is intended by the broad definition of atheism, though it is hard to sustain the claim that the philosophical rejection of theism can be characterized in such terms. Implicit and explicit atheism The terms ''implicit atheism'' and ''explicit atheism'' were coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it." Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it", which, according to Smith, is sometimes called ''antitheism'' (see below). For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further according to whether or not the rejection is on rational grounds. The term ''critical atheism'' is used to label the view that belief in god is irrational, and is itself subdivided into a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being"; b) the view usually expressed by the statement, "god does not exist" or "the existence of god is impossible"; and c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p.17). Although Nagel rejects Smith's definition of atheism as merely "lack of theism", acknowledging only explicit "atheism" as true atheism, his tripartite classification of ''rejectionist atheism'' (commonly found in the philosophical literature) is identical to Smith's ''critical atheism'' typology. Everitt (2004) makes the point that professional philosophers are more interested in the grounds for giving or withholding assent to propositions: We need to distinguish between a ''biographical'' or ''sociological'' enquiry into why some people have believed or disbelieved in God, and an ''epistemological'' enquiry into whether there are any good reasons for either belief or unbelief... We are interested in the question of what ''good reasons'' there are for or against God's existence, and no light is thrown on that question by discovering people who hold their beliefs without having good reasons for them. (p.10) So, in philosophy (Flew and Martin notwithstanding), atheism is commonly defined along the lines of "rejection of theistic belief". This is often misunderstood to mean only the view that there is no God, but it is conventional to distinguish between two or three main sub-types of atheism in this sense (writers differ in their characterization of this distinction, and in the labels they use for these positions). The terms ''weak atheism'' and ''strong atheism'' (or ''negative atheism'' and ''positive atheism'') are often used as synonyms of Smith's less-well-known ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' categories. However, the original and technical meanings of implicit and explicit atheism are quite different and distinct from weak and strong atheism, having to do with conscious rejection and unconscious rejection of theism rather than with positive belief and negative belief. Atheism interpreted as immorality The first attempts to define or develop a typology of atheism were in religious Apologetics . These attempts were expressed in terms and in contexts that reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers. A diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato , and common distinctions have been established between ''practical atheism'' and ''speculative'' or ''contemplative atheism''. Practical atheism According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne (1961, p.10), "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law." According to Karen Armstrong (1999): During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic... In his tract ''Atheism Closed and Open Anatomized'' (1634), John Wingfield claimed: "the hypocrite is an Atheist; the loose wicked man is an open Atheist; the secure, bold and proud transgressor is an Atheist: he that will not be taught or reformed is an Atheist". For the Welsh poet William Vaughan (1577 {Link without Title} -1641), who helped in the colonization of Newfoundland , those who raised rents or enclosed commons were obvious atheists. The English dramatist Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) proclaimed that the ambitious, the greedy, the gluttons, the vainglorious and prostitutes were all atheists. The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling ''himself'' an atheist. (p.331-332) On the other hand, the existence of serious speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might ''reason'' their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, or conceptualized as hatred of God, or a fight against God. This is why Borne finds it necessary to say, "to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only 'practical atheists' who through pride or idleness disregard the divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question." (p.18) Martin (1990, p.465-466) suggests that practical atheism would be better described as ''alienated theism''. Other pejorative definitions of atheism When denial of the existence of "speculative" atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless often repressed and criticized by narrowing definitions, applying charges of dogmatism, and otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of euphemistic alternative terms like Secularist , Empiricist , Agnostic , or Bright is that ''atheism'' still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism (''godless'' is still used as an abusive epithet). Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, the originators of the term ''Bright'', made this explicit in an essay published in 2003: Gaskin (1989) abandoned the term ''atheism'' in favor of ''unbelief'', citing "the pejorative associations of the term, its vagueness, and later the tendency of religious apologists to define atheism so that no one could be an atheist..." (p.4) Despite these considerations, for others ''atheist'' has always been the preferred name. Charles Bradlaugh once said (in debate with George Jacob Holyoake , 10 March 1870 , cited in Bradlaugh Bonner (1908)): I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie. I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect... I do not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word Atheist, I would fight until men respect it. (p.334) For more on repressive definitions of atheism, see Berman (1982), (1983), (1990). Weak and strong atheism Main articles: Weak Atheism , Strong Atheism '' Weak Atheism '', sometimes called ''soft atheism'', ''negative atheism'' or ''neutral atheism'', is the absence of belief in the existence of Deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. '' Strong Atheism '', also known as ''hard atheism'' or ''positive atheism'', is the assertion that no deities exist. Although explicit atheists ( Nontheists who consciously reject theism), may subscribe to either ''weak'' or ''strong'' atheism, weak atheism also includes implicit atheists - that is, nontheists who have not consciously rejected theism, but lack theistic belief, arguably including infants. Theists claim that a single deity or group of deities exists. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they only refrain from assenting to theistic claims. Some weak atheists are without any opinion regarding the existence of deities, either because of a lack of thought on the matter, a lack of interest in the matter (see Apatheism ), or a belief that the arguments and evidence provided by both theists and strong atheists are equally unpersuasive. Others (explicit weak atheists) may doubt or dispute claims for the existence of deities, while not actively asserting that deities do not exist, following Wittgenstein's famous dictum, "Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent." Some weak atheists feel that theism and strong atheism are equally untenable, on the grounds that faith is required both to assert and to deny the existence of deities, and as such both theism and strong atheism have the burden of proof placed on them to prove that a god does or doesn't exist. Some also base their belief on the notion that it is impossible to prove a negative. While a weak atheist might consider the nonexistence of deities likely on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a deity's existence, a strong atheist has the additional view that positive statements of nonexistence are merited when evidence or arguments indicate that a deity's nonexistence is certain or probable. Strong atheism may be based on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible (positive Ignosticism ), or that one or more of the properties attributed to a deity are incompatible with what we observe in the world. Examples of this may be found in quantum physics, where the existence of mutually exclusive data negates the possibility of omniscience, usually a core attribute of monotheistic conceptions of deity. '' Agnosticism '' is distinct from strong atheism, though many weak atheists may be agnostics, and those who are strong atheists with regard to a particular deity might be weak atheists or agnostics with regard to other deities. Ignosticism Main article: Ignosticism Ignosticism is the view that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. It is a popular view among many Logical Positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer , who hold that talk of gods is literally Nonsense . According to ignostics, "Does a god exist?" has the same logical status as "What color is Saturday?"; they are both nonsensical, and thus have no meaningful answers. Ignostics commonly hold that statements about religious or other transcendent experiences cannot have any truth value, often because theological statements lack Falsifiability , because of an Epistemological view that renders the Ontological Argument nonsensical, or because the terminology being used has not been properly or consistently defined — the latter view is known as Theological Noncognitivism . The use of the word "god" is thus solely a matter of Semantics to ignostics, dealing with word use and technicalities rather than with existence and reality. In ''Language, Truth and Logic'', Ayer stated that theism, atheism and agnosticism were equally meaningless, insofar as they treat the question of the existence of God as a real question. However, there are varieties of atheism and agnosticism which do not necessarily agree that the question is meaningful, especially using the "lack of theism" definition of atheism. Despite Ayer's criticism of atheism (perhaps using the definition typically associated with Strong Atheism ), Ignosticism is usually counted as a form of atheism; Ayer (1966) was clear on his position: I do not believe in God. It seems to me that theists of all kinds have very largely failed to make their concept of a deity intelligible; and to the extent that they have made it intelligible, they have given us no reason to think that anything answers to it. (p226) The ignostic position is mentioned (though the term ''ignostic'' is not used) as one of the three forms of "critical atheism" (in Smith) or "rejectionist atheism" (in Nagel). Active disbelief in god or supernatural beings is one other type of critical/rejectionist atheism. Finally, the third type is the positive claim that deities do not exist. Since critical/rejectionist atheism is a type of explicit atheism, it follows that ignosticism is a type of explicit atheism. There is some debate over whether it should be classified as Weak Atheism or Strong Atheism . Ignosticism is distinct from apatheism in that while ignostics hold ''questions'' and ''discussions'' of whether deities exist to be meaningless, apatheists hold that even a hypothetical ''answer'' to such questions would be completely irrelevant to human existence. Gnostic and agnostic atheism Main article: Agnostic Atheism Agnostic atheism is a fusion of atheism or Nontheism with Agnosticism , the Epistemological position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown ( Weak Agnosticism ) or unknowable ( Strong Agnosticism ). Agnostic atheism is typically contrasted with Agnostic Theism , the belief that deities exist even though it is impossible to know that deities exist, and with gnostic atheism, the belief that there is enough information to determine that deities do not exist. ''Agnostic atheism'''s definition varies, just as the definitions of agnosticism and atheism do. It may be a combination of lack of theism with Strong Agnosticism , the view that it is impossible to know whether deities exist to any reliable degree. It may also be a combination of lack of theism with Weak Agnosticism , the view that there is not currently enough information to decide whether or not a deity exists, but that there may be enough in the future. ''Gnostic atheism'' is a more rarely used term, because often anyone who is not labeled as agnostic is assumed to be gnostic by default. Gnostic atheism also has varying meanings. When nontheism is combined with strong gnosticism, it denotes the belief that it is rational to be absolutely certain that deities do not, and perhaps cannot, exist. When it is with weak gnosticism, it denotes the belief that there is enough information to be reasonably sure that deities do not exist, but not absolutely certain. The term should not be confused with Gnosticism . ''Gnostic atheism'' is also sometimes used as a synonym of Strong Atheism , and thus ''agnostic atheism'' is occasionally a synonym for Weak Atheism . This is similar to the more common confusion of the terms ''implicit atheism'' and ''explicit atheism'' with strong and weak atheism. Apatheism often overlaps with agnostic atheism, such as with Apathetic Agnosticism , a fusion of apatheism with strong agnostic atheism. Atheism in philosophical naturalism Many, if not most, atheists have preferred to say that atheism is a lack of a belief, rather than a belief in its own right (see, for example, Krueger (1998, p.22-24); Smith (1979, p.15-16)). This keeps the burden of proof on the theist (see Flew (1984b)), as the only one making any positive assertions. "Belief" also has other connotations that many atheists may wish to avoid. Nevertheless, some atheist writers identify atheism with the Naturalistic World View , and defend it on that basis. The case for naturalism is used as a positive argument for atheism. See, for example, Thrower (1971), Harbour (2001), Nielsen (2001) and Baggini (2003). See also Everitt's discussion of an anti-atheist argument against naturalism (2004, Chapter 9, p.178-190). According to Thrower, Much atheism... can be understood only in the light of the current theism which it was concerned to reject. Such atheism is relative. There is, however, a way of looking at and interpreting events in the world, whose origins... can be seen as early as the beginnings of speculative thought itself, and which I shall call naturalistic, that is atheistic per se, in the sense that it is incompatible with any and every form of supernaturalism... naturalistic or absolute atheism is both fundamentally more important, and more interesting, representing as it does one polarity in the development of the human spirit. (p.3-4) Julian Baggini argues that, "atheism can be understood not simply as a denial of religion, but as a self-contained belief system, if it is seen as a commitment to the view that there is only one world and this is the world of nature" (p.74). For Baggini, therefore, the evidence for atheism is to be found in the fact that there is a plethora of evidence for the truth of naturalism and an absence of evidence for anything else. 'Anything else' of course includes God, but it also includes goblins, hobbits, and truly everlasting gobstoppers. There is nothing special about God in this sense. God is just one of the things that atheists don't believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name. (p.17) Baggini's position is that "an atheist does not usually believe in the existence of immortal souls, life after death, ghosts, or supernatural powers. Although strictly speaking an atheist could believe in any of these things and still remain an atheist... the arguments and ideas that sustain atheism tend naturally to rule out other beliefs in the supernatural or transcendental" (p.3-4). Michael Martin (1990, p.470) notes that the view that "naturalism is compatible with nonatheism is true only if 'god' is understood in a most peculiar and misleading way", but he also points out that "atheism does not entail naturalism". Antitheism Main article: Antitheism ''Antitheism'' (sometimes hyphenated) typically refers to a direct opposition to Theism . In this use, it is a form of critical Strong Atheism . Antitheism may sometimes overlap with Ignosticism , the view that theism is inherently meaningless, and may directly contradict Apatheism , the view that theism is irrelevant rather than dangerous. However, ''antitheism'' is also sometimes used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to God or Divine things, rather than to the belief in God. Using the latter definition, it may be possible — or perhaps even necessary — to be an antitheist without being an atheist or nontheist. Antitheists may believe that theism is actually harmful, or may simply be atheists who have little tolerance for views they perceive as Irrational . Strong atheists who are not antitheists may believe positively that deities do not exist, but not believe that theism is directly harmful or necessitates opposition. HISTORY See Also: History of atheism Although the actual term ''atheism'' originated in 16th Century France , ideas that would be recognized as atheistic today existed even before Classical Antiquity . Epicurus proposed theories that can be classified as atheistic, such as a lack of belief in an afterlife, though he remained ambiguous concerning the actual existence of deities. Before him, Socrates was Sentenced To Death partly on the grounds that he was an atheist, although he did express belief in several forms of divinity, as recorded in Plato 's '' Apology ''. This criminal connotation attached to atheistic ideas ( Heresy ) would remain, at varying levels of severity, until The Renaissance , when criticism of the Church became more prevalent and tolerated. Atheism disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. During the Age Of Enlightenment , the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious Status Quo , but by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority. By the 20th century, along with the spread of Rationalism and Secular Humanism , atheism had become common, particularly among Scientist s (see International Survey Of Contemporary Atheism ). In the 20th Century, atheism also became a staple of the various Communist State s, helping to enforce some of the negative connotations of atheism in places where anti-communism was widespread - especially in the United States , where the term became synonymous with being unpatriotic during the Cold War . DISTRIBUTION OF ATHEISTS Though atheists are in the minority in most countries, they are relatively common in Western Europe , Australia , New Zealand , Canada , in former and present Communist states, and, to a lesser extent, in the United States . Atheism in Sweden According to several studies, Sweden may be the most atheistic country in the world. According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God Zuckerman pitzer.edu . There are even priests in the National Church Of Sweden who do not believe in god. But as of 2005 , due to a number of scandals and murders where churches have been involved, some even go so far as to claim that Sweden has become a predominantly Antitheist country. gluefox.com Atheism in the United Kingdom believe in god than women and younger people were less likely to believe in god than older people. |
|
|