COLUMN: In Defense of Atheism
I never intended to write an article on atheism, but in light of Monday’s letter to the editor titled “Atheism is a religion too,” I feel it’s necessary. The letter’s author, Adam Vanderwerf, argued that my frustrations with religion are misplaced, because atheism is itself a religion. This argument is predicated on a few misunderstandings.
Atheism scarcely resembles a religion. While defining religion is difficult, I think the Encyclopedia of Philosophy has articulated a sufficiently nuanced definition. Here are the basic characteristics of religion:
1.
A belief in supernatural beings (gods). 2.
A moral code believed to be divinely mandated or sanctioned. 3.
A means of communicating with gods. 4.
A distinction between the sacred and profane. 5.
A world view, usually with an overarching cosmic purpose. 6.
Ritual acts performed in accordance with that world view. 7.
Shared transcendental experiences and feelings. 8.
A social group bound together by the above.
By these criteria, atheism is not a religion. Nor, for that matter, is theism. It takes more to qualify as a religion than just a mere belief (or lack thereof).
And that’s all atheism is, a lack of belief. This is precisely why atheism is not faith-based-it does not necessarily posit anything. Contrary to popular opinion, atheism is not the “unscientific hypothesis that there is no divine being or beings.” One can disbelieve in gods and yet not deny the possibility of their existence. That may seem trivial, but it is an important distinction.
Another misunderstanding is over the definition of faith. Faith is not the lack of proof; faith is a belief that exceeds the available evidence. It does not take faith, for example, to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Humankind has accumulated thousands of years of evidence which demonstrates that the sun rises, without fail, every morning. Even a more explicit atheism, one which affirmatively denies the existence of some gods, does not demand an undue leap of faith. I reject the claim that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This often holds true, but it carries little weight in a theologically context.
If god loves us and wants us to believe in him, then it logically follows that he would make his existence apparent. Instead, our universe exhibits no evidence of intelligent design. Why, if we are the object of god’s attention, would he engineer a universe where black holes greatly outnumber life-conducive worlds? Our world in particular is prone to mass extinctions, disease and a myriad of natural catastrophes. Let’s pray there isn’t a god behind this mess. With a resume like this, you couldn’t even get a job at McDonald’s.
The very concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god seems intolerably incoherent to me. I cannot believe in a god who intervenes to help my religious friends on their math exams, yet idly allows genocide in Iraq and Darfur. And suppose this god does exist, I’m not so sure it would deserve our worship.
You, too, are likely an atheist with at least respect to Zeus, Thor, Horus, Vishnu, Allah, in addition to many others. And yet, do you lie awake at night fretting over the possibility that you will face the wrath of these gods for disbelieving or denying them? Probably not. And why should you? Sometimes it is reasonable to be agnostic in theory, but atheist in practice.
Atheists aren’t intolerant of religion; that is unless it is intolerant to disagree with religious beliefs. Can atheists be intellectually stubborn? Of course, it’s human nature, but it is unfair to brand all atheists as dogmatic. Unlike religious fundamentalists, who insistently cling to their faith, honest atheists will change their minds to conform to the evidence. Richard Dawkins, the author of “The God Delusion,” has expressed a desire to believe in god. For him and countless others, however, the evidence needed to justify that belief is simply wanting.
I’ll assume that when Mr. Vanderwerf bemoans “secular fanaticism,” he is referring to 20th century fascism and communism. Equating secularism with either, though, is an irresponsible innuendo. Atheist author Sam Harris writes, “The problem with fascism and communism is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions.
“Such regimes,” he continues, “are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship.”
Today’s resurgent atheism does share one thing with religion: evangelism. This isn’t much of a concession in my opinion. It is ridiculous to expect atheists to be quiet as our world is ravaged by religion. If you hold certain beliefs dear, it is incumbent upon you to share those beliefs, be they religious or not.
Ultimately, part of me hopes Mr. Vanderwerf is right-that atheism is a religion. The fledgling atheist movement could really use the tax breaks.
Jon Adams is a junior majoring in political science. Comments and questions can be sent to him at jonadams@cc.usu.edu.