Atheism is the rejection of theism, not a belief system

Here's a follow-up to my "Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief." That post had quotes from James Lindsay's second book. 

The passages below are from Lindsay's first book, God Doesn't, We Do. Once again, he persuasively challenges the false assumption that theism, believing in God, and atheism, not believing in God, are somehow both belief systems.

Doesn't make sense. Read on to see why.

Another common misconception among believers is that infidels, atheists in particular, subscribe to a religious view that is called Atheism. This is incorrect, generally speaking.

We might be able to call (capitalized) Atheism a quasi-religion in that it lacks a Supreme Being -- indeed it categorically denies the existence of any such thing. Quasi-religions of varying sorts could be built beginning with a categorical denial of deities, for example by equipping that denial with ideas from Buddhism, Taoism, the Jedi of Star Wars, or many New Age belief systems.

States could also create them. Maoism, particularly, could easily have become such a religion. Importantly, though, this position is rarely held. This is because it is the difficulty with claiming an unknowable philosophical position with certainty that pushes people away from theistic belief.

While Atheism is an ideological position without a completely firm philosophical basis, (lowercase) atheism is just the denial or rejection of theism, the belief in a god or gods, and its philosophical, moral, and intellectual base is substantial.

Lowercase atheism is not a religion or even an ideology.

...Since atheism is a position free of dogma, those that have denied religion are free to think about the world how they will, often earning them the title of freethinker. Without religion, many turn to or seek a scientific understanding of the world, frankly because it works quite successfully, though excitingly incompletely, at explaining what is.

Even in this worthwhile endeavor, though, there is no requirement. Atheism, quite opposite religion, and in some ways to its detriment (politically, for example) requires and thus has no unifying creed, doctrine, dogma, or agenda.

It is just an unfortunate title for people that do not believe in supernatural gods, and it is a title that should be every bit as unnecessary as a-Santa-ist or a-faerie-ist.

Comments

[Rain Trueax]

Whether it's a belief system depends on whether that person goes around trying to convince others of what they believe. That is a belief system and one that proselytizes. I tend to think agnosticism is the one that isn't a belief system. Not knowing makes people less aggressive in trying to convince others that they have the ultimate truth-- which atheists and theists believe they have. There are atheists who don't try to promote their beliefs but when they do, it changes how I see it and it's as obnoxious as any true believer who has the ultimate truth that we all should accept if we only had the wisdom to know it...

[cc]

There are atheists who don't try to promote their beliefs...

Either you haven't been paying attention or you're such a devout believer that you consider it impossible for anyone to be devoid of religious beliefs.

If someone tells you your preaching and promoting of religious beliefs is tiresome and worrisome, is he speaking from a belief or responding reasonably to your irrational behavior?

[Rain Trueax]

I happen to know atheists who don't make a big deal of it and do not try to tell everybody else what they should believe. Likewise I know some believers though who don't proselytize. However there are atheists who literally put down anyone stupid enough to believe in a god. They promote their 'belief' that nobody should believe in a god-- and being around that gets old fast

I am an agnostic; so this whole subject doesn't relate to me other than I don't want believers of any sort coming down my throat with how I'd think their way if I had a brain.

And what makes it irrational to not want to have someone telling them how they should think, cc?

[Roger]

I prefer not to be an atheist, agnostic and believer. But, but I surely am something, you know one of those cataloged categorized things.

Oh well........

Enough said, I am off to the Flamingo Hotel for some fun time with the birds and fish.

[cc]

there are atheists who literally put down anyone stupid enough to believe in a god. They promote their 'belief' that nobody should believe in a god

In a secular society, nobody complains about atheists and their "beliefs" because religious faith is regarded as delusional, yet tolerable, within limits.

People can't be stopped from believing whatever nonsense appeals to them, but one can demonstrate (by being fact-based rather than faith-based), that it's better to be reasonable than gullible.

[Rain Trueax]

we don't disagree, cc but it's just it's our personal choice. I choose to not worry about what's out there spiritually hence agnostic. I don't go looking nor try to convince anybody though that they are wrong-- since as an agnostic, I'm not sure.

The issue here though was a belief system and i would say atheism can be one... or not. it all depends on how far people take it. I used to debate such issues, religion or no religion, but now it's not on my radar except when I come to Brian's blog and think about it.

I believe (my belief system) that someday I might change what I think and it could go either way-- but it would take proof of no god or proof of a god. Since I don't go looking for either (I used to), I may never change from this state of trying to live right and not trying to define what is or is not out there. It's interesting though how many millions of people do 'know' and yet disagree...

[Osho Robbins]

Osho was asked
"If there is no God, are you an athiest?"

In his reply - he says "I say there is no God"
But I say there is Godliness - meaning that God is not a person / personality

here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQFUpOOINd8

and this one someone asks "do you consider
yourself to be a God?"
"My God", he exclaims "there is no God!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pp5mWs8k5I

and this one is in response to the question
"I am confused hearing you say there is no God"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xggTJCCxFss

Osho is not giving anyone any religious beliefs - he is simply saying - discover the truth - see the obvious. But he is not giving anyone an intellectual argument either. He is saying there is a state of enlightenment - but it's not something you attain - it is a realization.

[Osho Robbins]

cc wrote:
People can't be stopped from believing whatever nonsense appeals to them, but one can demonstrate (by being fact-based rather than faith-based), that it's better to be reasonable than gullible.

What is reasonable? What is gullible. What you consider gullible another may consider stupid. What you think is reasonable another may say is unreasonable or stupid.

These are just opinions and everyone has their own. I am not on a mission to change anyone's beliefs - it is none of my business. I am simply enjoying the process of whatever I do or say. Anyone can take from it what they want or don't want - it makes no difference to me. I am not a man on a mission and I have nothing to prove or disprove.

[cc]

I am simply enjoying the process of whatever I do or say. Anyone can take from it what they want or don't want - it makes no difference to me. I am not a man on a mission and I have nothing to prove or disprove.

You may be enjoying yourself but you're a bore, neither informative nor entertaining. Stick with youtube and leave this church to the unfaithful.

[Sandra]

To cc,

Think about this:
Some people feel the need to switch off the light of others – they think they themselves can shine in this way. This is a fallacy IMO

[Turan]

It’s a pity that the concept of belief has become a ‘catchall’ term. Basically, the belief we question here is the belief or faith in explanations that are devoid of physical evidence. Science, in accumulating testable evidence and data has gradually been eroding (once unquestioned) theistic, supernatural explanations.

Any other reference to belief should carry the appropriate concept that describes the action. For example, when we say we believe it will rain tomorrow, we should have in mind that our ‘belief’ is based on measurable data and is a based on a sound theory. Likewise, when we say we ‘believe’ in atheism, we are saying we accept the evidence and data that shows there is a natural (physical) explanation to the observed phenomenon – and is based on a sound theory.

[cc]

Some people feel the need to switch off the light of others – they think they themselves can shine in this way.

People who mistake noise for light blaze with indignation when their error is illuminated.

[Sandra]

cc,

mistake is the continual companion in the humans life. nobody is impeccable. There is no reason to think that someone has found the better truth. So live and preach, if you like, but let others do the same.

No offense - none taken. Hope to have found the right words.

[Brian Hines]

Sandra, having heard physicist Brian Greene give a talk here in Salem last night, I have to take issue with your comment. This is the post I wrote about his talk:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2013/11/brian-greene-makes-physics-wow-at-willamette-u-talk.html

There are indeed better and worse truths. This is what science is all about. Statements about the world that aren't based on evidence may be defensible as subjective "likes," but not as truths about reality.

As Greene said in his talk, we can't leave decisions about reality to the least informed about reality -- those who deny science and the scientific method. Again, personal subjectivity is fine, but it needs to be founded on evidence and reason if someone wants others to accept those propositions.

Often, or usually, people "of faith" leave comments on this blog that don't start with "my personal opinion is..." "I feel that this is so..." Rather, they state conclusions about reality that can be applied to others. In these cases, it is totally appropriate to challenge those conclusions.

This is the only way we learn truer truths: through open discussion and debate, something Brian Greene demonstrated wonderfully in the substance and style of his talk last night.

[cc]

There is no reason to think that someone has found the better truth.

Brian has refuted this notion nicely, and I'd only like to add that there is every reason "to think that someone has found the better truth". If this was not true, "truth" would have no meaning.

The "better truth" about anything is that which more accurately describes, defines, explains, and demonstrates the subject, and there's no telling who will be the one to do it or what will be revealed, but it will clearly be "better" than it was previously thought to be. This is how science works.

[jason]

Honest question;)...None of us really exist yes? So whats the fuss about?

[Sandra]

Thank you Brian and cc for your inspiring reflections. New thought patterns are developing in my brain :)

Just two notes regarding Brian’s post about Brian Greene.

“we can't be sure we are seeing reality clearly”
I would even intensify this statement saying that we can be quite sure, that we don’t see reality clearly”.

“All we can do is seek the truth as forcefully as possible.”
Since it will always be just the small truth of a human being - human reality, there is no chance for reality as it is (at least in the current state of the human evolution). In the end you’ll arrive at the conclusion: All I know is that I know nothing.
However instead of falling into despair because of this perception, Brian Greene is encouraging us to “pursue a truth-seeking journey, not a destination” (knowing there is no destination). I like this approach.

[cc]

Honest question;)...None of us really exist yes? So whats the fuss about?

This is not an honest question. It's an expression of your belief that you don't exist.

[Roger]

“we can't be sure we are seeing reality clearly”

---we can find some degree of clarity clearly in our relative reality. We don't need to find(seek) an absolute.

“All we can do is seek the truth as forcefully as possible.”

---Relax, take it easy. We can seek, but at best we will find relative truth. Using the Scientific Method does help.

"All I know is that I know nothing."

----In absolute terms, I(you) know nothing. However, in relative terms, you can know something. You know how to type on a keyboard. You know how to read.

[jason]

Cc,

I actually "know" I exist! My point was, if it follows from your(not yours per se) worldview that we dont "really" exist? Then whats the point? If atheism is or isn't a belief system or what ever? "Who" cares?

[Shriram Bhandari]

Personally do see Atheism as a belief but not a lack of belief, not a belief that there is no God but a very firm conviction that naturalism is ultimately the only truth. The naturalistic explanation of the world for an atheist does not extend beyond the interact and property of matter.This clearly is Atheism and is definitely a conviction you will have to agree that most atheists do have this conviction. I see such a conviction as a positive belief nothing more. Issue is that many Atheists are unable to accept this fact.