What Is Atheism?
A Brief Rundown on Some of the Varieties of Non-belief.
Let’s get it out of the way now. Nearly EVERY human on the planet is an Atheist with respect to most of the gods ever invented in the history of our species. If you’re a Pantheist, probably not, considering you think it’s all true; but I’ll enjoy reading your dissertation on how to sort out all the various inconsistencies in ALL of the world’s religions once it’s published…
That aside, if you’re a religious person who can’t fathom how it’s possible for an Atheist to NOT believe, you need only look at your world-view with respect to all of the gods you don’t believe in to get a clue. The difference between you and a fully committed Atheist is that the latter will never try to carve out a special niche, absent credible evidence, for one little slice of the mythological pantheon we’ve conjured. Unlike you, we’re consistent in that we go all in with regard to EVERY god ever fabricated by the human mind. No evidence = no gods.
You can, of course, try to pull that tired argument which claims that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ but you’re only running your boat around in circles. Not once in the history of our species has there ever been a shred of tangible evidence presented which irrefutably and unequivocally settles the question of the supernatural. And until something is presented so as to, at the very least, establish that the existence of a creator deity is even probable, the burden of proof is still on you to demonstrate the veracity of any truth claims you make with regard to the same. Don’t expect any one of us to respect or even tolerate your refusal to see reason on the matter of evidence.
That said, Atheism by itself is little more than a negation of an affirmative religious assertion, that being the (unfounded) truth claim that a god exists. You’re stating that you don’t accept a supernatural, theistic interpretation of reality. On the surface, the word itself merely means non-religious, in the same way that the word Apolitical means not actively engaged in the discussion of, or active participation in, matters of a political nature.
It’s only when you add a modifier that your variety of Atheism takes form, much in the same way that a sports fan has a favored game they prefer above all others, like baseball or golf. One can have a modifier such as Humanist, or Agnostic, or Jewish, or even Christian in front of Atheist to give form to their particular world-view, and maybe even three or more. What’s say we take a quick look at some differing modifiers to see what options are available for all the myriad non-believers in today’s world…?
Christian Atheist
Why not start with a problematic one, considering that Atheism is a problematic pill for most people to swallow as is…?
Most Christians will likely assert that the two stances are so disparate as to be irreconcilable. However, there are liberal churches who welcome Atheists, a minority of our community who attend christian worship services merely for the benefit of the rituals and the community atmosphere. And, as I have asserted in other writings, if you base your world-view predominantly on the tenets of the christian belief system, you can justifiably call yourself ‘christian’ regardless of the opinions of others.
Sure, you may not believe in the mythology and the assorted supernatural garbage, but you take the random bits of philosophy which can be found in christian doctrine to heart, like helping the poor as a progressive value, and make these things a part of your cultural identity. It’s just the same as a Jewish person being culturally Jewish but not actively religious (I wont touch on the genetic implications here, as that’s not relevant to this discussion). It’s a tough sell for most people, I will admit, and there is an active discussion going on about the implications. As far as I am concerned, however, if you take to heart christianity as a purely cultural thing, a philosophy absent any supernatural elements, you can legitimately call yourself a christian Atheist.
In the same vein, one can substitute Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or any other world religion into the mix and the connotation is the same.
Humanist Atheist
There are a lot of ways to define Humanist in the current understanding, but for these purposes I’ll be limiting my focus to Secular Humanism, which is defined, according to the American Humanist Association, as
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.”
Similarly, Humanists UK has this to say on their website
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.
Essentially there isn’t much of a difference between an Atheist and a Humanist apart from the fact that Secular Humanism affirms something, that being a rationalist, scientific world-view. Still, to call yourself a Humanist Atheist is to define your non-belief in specific terms which can form the basis of a world-view apart from the simple negation of religion that is Atheism.
Antitheist Atheist
This one may not seem like much of a distinction on the surface but the distinction is an important one if we’re to include Antitheism on this list. As I stated prior, the Atheism has the same connotation with regard to religion as the word Apolitical has with regard to politics. The word Antitheism, on the other hand, has a more vociferous, active element to it. Taken from the Greek words anti- and theos, it literally means ‘against the divine’. Since there isn’t actually anything of a definable divine quality extant in the universe, for our purposes it means ‘against religion’.
This goes further than simple Atheism in that anyone who self-classifies as an Antitheist is claiming to be actively against religion in all forms, whether it be the dominant world religions like Hindusim or Islam, or even joke religions like Pastafarianism, The Church of the SubGenius or The Church of Bacon. For my part, I consider myself an Antitheist but I make exceptions for believers who are into their religion for themselves and don’t try to influence other people, or rather, people who shove their shit in the faces of the unwilling and demand they take a whiff. I’m still against their religion but I don’t give them any deliberate grief if they aren’t causing anyone distress in the application of their beliefs and rituals.
Agnostic-Gnostic Atheist
Technically a two-fer here, but I did that on purpose because the Greek word ‘Gnosis’ is at the root of both words, and means ‘Knowlege’. Therefore, to be a Gnostic is to have certain knowledge and to be Agnostic is to have uncertainty where it concerns knowledge. In basic terms, to be an Agnostic means you just don’t know, or can’t yet know the answer to any given question about the supernatural. Gnosticism, on the other hand, means you do and can know these things.
Agnostics are essentially fence-sitters who can’t jump to one side or the other, owing to lack of proof or evidence on questions of the supernatural. As I’ve heard it said, jokingly, they’re just Atheists who refuse to commit. In terms of rational inquiry, the intellectually pure position is to say ‘I don’t know’ and then seek out answers. I do value purity in terms of rational inquiry, but I can never call myself an Agnostic because it leaves open too many uncertainties when the probable outcome is that there will never be any evidence presented in favor of the supernatural.
Gnosticism is less extant in modern terms, where it regards religion and non-belief, owing to the fact that you essentially can’t know the unknowable, and right now no one can demonstrate the existence or non-existence of any gods; thus we really can’t say yes or no to the question. The closest any Atheist can get to being truly ‘Gnostic’ is to say it’s extremely unlikely that any gods exist based on the evidence so far presented.
I, for one, am ok with saying there are no gods, on this basis, because I think science has done a wonderful job over the centuries of pushing the supernatural further into obscurity as a primary active force in the natural world. We know now that demons don’t cause disease, or deformity or madness because we know from scientific discovery that bacteria/viruses, genetic defects and brain abnormalities cause these things. A supernatural cause is an unnecessary element in the explanation of these problems. So, in a sense, one can be a Gnostic Atheist on the basis of what science now knows about those things which used to be attributed to the supernatural, coupled with the probability that the science of the future will make more discoveries in the same direction and push religion so far off of the intellectual landscape that it loses any and all relevance in human affairs.
Utilitarian Atheist
This world view aims, at it’s core to make life better for as many people as possible, by elevating well-being and happiness through adherence to basic principles of utility. In my terms, I see this as sticking to things which are inherently useful and rejecting things which are largely frivolous, as in, say, collecting comics because you enjoy superheroes but never collecting statues of superheroes because they don’t do anything useful sitting on a shelf collecting dust. Comics are literature and art, which can be used to educate more on literature and art, as an example. Reading books instead of watching TV can be considered utilitarian because the mind is more stimulated in the absorption of words than it is in the tediousness of Reality TV.
Some have made the claim that one can achieve this happiness through utility ideal by means which are inherently evil, such as eliminating a third of all humans in order to raise the standard of living for the remaining two thirds. I reject that, however, because in order for something to be ethical, it has to be something which causes no harm and I’m not sure you could wipe out a massive portion of the population without leaving significant scars on the survivors, regardless of how much it might improve their lot in material terms.
For my part, I consider myself a Utilitarian Atheist, but I add the caveat that I’m a Humanistic Utilitarian, in that I believe in elevating well-being for as many as possible but only in ways that aren’t inherently harmful. Some might say that my support of the right to choose abortion might cause harm to the fetus, but I say to those people that having too many humans on the planet drives down the well-being of the whole species owning to the potential strain on resources. So I suppose it comes down to what your definition of ‘harmful’ is and how you apply it. I prefer a broad, big picture of the term, and things like abortion don’t really do harm on an individual level, unless christians get their panties in a twist over not being able to control women and die an early death from too much aggravation…but then…not so harmful in the grand scheme of things. Fewer Far-Right Fascists in the world means less anxiety for the rest of us.
There are myriad modifiers extant in the human lexicon which can be added to Atheism to better define what kind of Atheist you are. These five(technically six) are just a few. Take a look around and see what other philosophical stances you might be able to find to add to your personal definition of your Atheism in this world where the Vulcan ideal of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) would apply, if only we were smart enough to keep our emotions in check. There’s one for you — Vulcan Atheist…or Jedi Atheist…or Elven Atheist…or Avenger Atheist…or…or…or…
Adieu Mes Amies
If you would like to see more of my writing on matters of religion and non-belief, follow this link.
