About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Common Misconceptions About Atheists and Atheism

By David Gleeson for the American Chronicle

August 10, 2006

After watching Morgan Spurlock's "30 Days" episode on FX last night, about an atheist mother who agrees to live with a wealthy Christian family for a month, it became painfully obvious to me that most people have glaring misconceptions about what it means to be an atheist, and about atheism in general. In this article, I'd like to highlight some of the most common errors and offer a level-headed response to these misunderstandings.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist.

This statement's ubiquity is exceeded only by its utter falseness; not only is it misleading, but it is the complete opposite of the truth. The word 'atheism' comes from the Greek prefix 'a', meaning without, and 'theist', meaning having a belief in a supernatural deity. Atheism, therefore, literally means "without theistic belief". Atheism does not positively assert anything; rather, it is a statement of withheld belief. Atheists, therefore, do not positively assert that gods do not exist. Atheists simply withhold belief in said gods because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the belief. This is not to say that there isn't sufficient reason to believe that certain gods do not exist. There is. But to categorically deny the existence of all gods would require a leap of faith that is anathema to a true atheist. Atheism requires no such leap.

Atheism requires just as much faith as theism.

This misconception arises because of the misunderstanding of the term 'atheism', as described above. If atheism were indeed a positive assertion that no gods exist, then this criticism would be valid. After all, it would take just as much faith to claim that no gods exist as it would to claim that one god or many gods exist. But atheism makes no such claim. Atheism, as noted above, is nothing but withheld belief. It does not take faith to have a non-belief. If I don't believe that Elvis is still alive, I am not practicing an anti-Elvis faith. If I withhold belief in Santa Claus, I am not a member of a Santa-less church. When an atheist says, "I don't believe in the Christian God", she is merely saying that the evidence for belief is insufficient. It is the same type of withheld belief that a Christian practices with regard to the beliefs of Muslims, Jews and other non-Christians.

Atheists' lives are meaningless and devoid of hope and purpose.

This is nothing but the believer projecting his own feelings onto the atheist about how his life might be different in the absence of God. It says nothing about the true feelings of atheists. Atheists' lives are not tied up in the remote possibility of an afterlife. My life is meaningful, simply, because it is meaningful to me and to those who love me. My life has purpose every time I strive toward a worthy goal. I do not need the promise of an afterlife to find meaning and purpose in this life. Indeed, my life is more precious and more meaningful simply because I know it is short and fleeting. Because I expect no eternal reward or damnation after death, I treat each day as a gift. Compare this to the thought processes of an Islamic fundamentalist, who is willing to give up his earthly life for the promise of eternal bliss in the arms of 72 sex-starved virgins. Whose life has more hope and meaning and purpose, I wonder?

Atheists have no morals because they reject belief in an eternal moral-giver (i.e. God).

When you think about it, this is a preposterous statement. Ethics and morals, after all, preceded Jesus by thousands of years. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, while inspiring, was basically just a rehash of the same Golden Rule that had been around for three milliennia. But let's look at the issue a little more critically. If God is the source of all morals, then God, presumably, could change the rules at any time. Since no one is writing new Bibles or talking to God behind burning bushes, how are we to know what's right now, today? What's to stop God from deciding that moral behavior now includes the option of intentionally starving millions of innocent children, and then demonstrating this new morality by inflicting famine on the world's poorest nations? How would we ever know right from wrong under such circumstances? Doesn't this lead to the same sort of moral relativism that theists accuse atheists of practicing? If, on the other hand, moral laws are independent of God, then humans are free to discover those laws on their own. Either way, it seems God is unnecessary with regard to moral behavior. Atheists simply follow the moral agenda that has been refined by the evolution of advanced civilizations over the past few centuries. We've learned how to be nice to each other. It's not that hard, really.

Atheists must have had a bad childhood experience to cause them to give up on religion and hate God.

Some atheists may have had such experiences, but I can assure you this is not the case in most situations. For me and for most atheists, the journey from belief to non-belief is simply a gradual process of discovery that eventually leads to God/gods becoming unnecessary. I don't need God to explain the origin or evolution of life on Earth; evolution provides a naturalistic and awe-inspiring explanation that's backed by mountains of evidence. I don't need God to comfort me against the fear of death and the unknown; I do not fear death. I don't need God to account for human selfishness or altruism; my understanding of human nature accomplishes that. In short, as my knowledge has increased, the gaps that God may have filled have become progressively smaller, to the point that God is no longer necessary. I am no more angry at "God" than Christians are angry at the gods of Mount Olympus. Christians simply have no investment in the belief in said gods; they lose nothing by rejecting them. The same is true for me and "God".

In summary, then, an atheist rejects belief in God or gods because the evidence does not compel such belief. This does not lead to a lonely and terrifying universe; in fact, it gives life more meaning and more purpose. Atheists aren't angry and resentful; they are thoughtful and caring and respectful of the inherent dignity in all of us. They deserve none of the vitriol that is constantly leveled at them.

7 comments:

dbackdad said...

Bravo! Well said. That's my credo in a nutshell.

I was raised Christian and did not have any traumatic experiences related to that. My atheism came from a cumulative realization and gradual rejection of hypocritical, contradictory and illogical teachings.

Juggling Mother said...

Despite many attempts, I have not managed to get any rabid theists to grasp the difference between "I believe there are no Gods" and "I do not believe in god(s)"

I'm not sure I've really managed to explain it to the less-rabid believes, although they are usually nicer about it:-)

CyberKitten said...

dbackdad said: Bravo! Well said. That's my credo in a nutshell.

I was impressed with David Gleesons article too. I thought that it pretty much hit several nails squarely on their heads.

dbackdad also said: I was raised Christian and did not have any traumatic experiences related to that. My atheism came from a cumulative realization and gradual rejection of hypocritical, contradictory and illogical teachings.

I actually have confused a few Christains by explaining to them that I haven't lost my faith because I never had any to begin with. I pretty much agree with the rest of your comment though!

JM said: Despite many attempts, I have not managed to get any rabid theists to grasp the difference between "I believe there are no Gods" and "I do not believe in god(s)"

Well... it is *such* a subtle difference don't you think [grin].

Though I do kinds oscilate between simple disbelief and actually disputing Gods existence - depending on my mood... Mostly though it is a [very simple] lack of belief.

dbackdad said...

" ... I haven't lost my faith because I never had any to begin with ..." -- That's actually not that different than my beginnings. I never believed in God but I was only 6 or 7 the last time that I attended church regularly and didn't know that was OK or even how to explain it to a deeply religious and evangelical grandfather. Even now I really avoid talking religion with him.

So, it wasn't so much that I was coming to grips with faith (or lack of it) but rather I was trying to figure out that not having faith didn't make me a freak.

Michael K. Althouse said...

I used to be an evangelical atheist - I wanted to spread the word to any and all who would listen as well as those (especially those) who would not.

Now - I don't care... whatever pops your toast is fine with me. Is there or isn't - it makes no difference. Belief is a powerful force all by itself and as history has shown, the difference between right and wrong is often based in belief - not fact.

I think that there are plenty of wondrous, mysterious, even magical powers in the universe. They might be so because we don't yet understand, or like so many discoveries, become even more wondrous once we do. That we personal these unknown wonders into a "human-like" package and call it a god is a uniquely human egocentricity – however, not all gods are made in *our* image.

I think that for now, I’ll reserve judgment until sufficient evidence proves one way or another. In the meantime, I’ll keep my ever-evolving views of the mysteries of existence to myself where they can do no harm.

Mike

CyberKitten said...

dbackdad - Apparently I used to love going to church as a very small boy. So much so that I used to drag my father there just about every Sunday for a while. I guess I liked the pomp and circumstance of the whole thing. I still like visiting churches wherever I am in the world. I can't remember why I stopped going. I can only imagine that I grew out of it.. [grin] One thing that never really crossed my mind at that time (IIRC) was anything to do with God.

dbackdad said: So, it wasn't so much that I was coming to grips with faith (or lack of it) but rather I was trying to figure out that not having faith didn't make me a freak.

Luckily I never had to do that. Growing up in a non-believing house and living in a largely Secular society its often the publically religious that are seen as nuts...

Mike said: I used to be an evangelical atheist - I wanted to spread the word to any and all who would listen as well as those (especially those) who would not.

Me too - the things we do in our youths. I could actually be quite obnoxious about it... though I've calmed down a bit now - such is maturity I guess. I still question theistic beliefs whenever I come across them - or whenever the feeling takes me on this Blog - and some of my questions can be tough.. but I think that people will believe whatever they want to, and there's very little anyone can do to change their minds.

Mike also said: I think that there are plenty of wondrous, mysterious, even magical powers in the universe.

There is indeed plenty of wonder and mystery in the Universe for everyone and I like it that way. Not too sure about magic though [grin].

Finally Mike said: In the meantime, I’ll keep my ever-evolving views of the mysteries of existence to myself where they can do no harm.

Good one. If only more people thought like you [grin]. It's interesting to discuss things though.....

Michael K. Althouse said...

There is a diffrence between discussing and preaching (I used to do the latter) and expessing my views to those who voluntarily request my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, opening up a blog is a voluntary act. However, being forced to listen in a public setting such as a school most decidedly is not.

Furthermore, enacting legislation on some presumed spiritual directive (aka morality) is tantamount to theocratic rule - not democracy, a principle that I have no qualms about preaching. The whole idea of persuading others to see things through our own particular prism has little to do with religion, spiritually or witchcraft, but everything to do with ego.

The same, though to a significantly lesser extent, can be said of the defense of those beliefs or lack thereof. I don’t need validation from anyone else to justify my beliefs. If I believed the sky was green, I would be fine even if I was the only one in the world who believed it was. And the fact that it is indeed blue has no bearing on my belief or – and this is key – what that means.

If believing the sky is green makes my life serene, peaceful, joyous and free, the fact that it is really blue matters not in the least. It wouldn’t make the qualities rendered by that belief any better if the sky really was green. We can discuss, on a scientific level the greenness or blueness of the sky all day long, but it wouldn’t change my belief.

I absolutely agree that there is no way, in a macro sense, to prove or disprove the existence of a “higher power,” or “being” or “god.” I find the endeavor to reveal the truth a philosophically intriguing adventure, but I have no personal stake in it. You may have noticed that I have not mentioned what I currently believe – god or no god. And I don’t intend to – it doesn’t matter what I believe to anyone but me.

Mike