Is it Possible to be an Atheist?

Some theists make the claim that it is impossible to hold an atheistic point-of-view.  The arguments run the gamut from totally ludicrous and vacuous to honest and respectable.  The arguments that are considered ludicrous are not considered here. They include tautological arguments as well as arguments based on misconceived definitions or simply ignorant and unwarranted assumptions. The arguments that are considered here are by far not the only arguments that claim that true atheism is impossible.   Atheism is not only a possibility, but the best, and most rational humanistic stance.  Four different theistic approaches to atheism will be addressed here: first, the argument that the atheist can be nothing more than an agnostic.  The second argument entails the belief that atheism is a unified philosophy that is defined by political and social agendas only.  Thirdly, the argument that many theists posit: that atheism is not supported by science.  Lastly, the argument that atheism is not supported by logic.

The argument, that atheism is nothing more than agnosticism, claims that the lack of scientifically verifiable evidence automatically makes atheism an unwarranted belief.  The typical arguments goes something like this: “Since there is (currently) no scientifically verifiable evidence to support either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called beliefs. Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the belief that there isn’t. Atheism, therefore, is not immune to the criticisms that other belief systems might draw.”[1] This argument is true in regard to weak atheism[2], but also in another sense, one that the theist will not be willing to accept: that any and all theistic claims are belief-claims, and therefore all belief-claims fall into the agnostic category.  What is good for the gander is good for the goose, as it were.  While it can be argued that there is no empirically verifiable evidence to support atheism, the probability that there is a God that created and rules over the universe is for all intent purposes, nullified.  The theist must first realize that all of our scientific theories guarantee the premises upon which they are founded, but can never guarantee the absolute truth of scientific conclusions.  The nature of science is that it is “based in the use of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and, therefore, always leaves open the possibility of finding the explanation of any event.”[3]  The Principle of Sufficient Reason is defined as “the principle that there must be sufficient reason-causal or otherwise-for why whatever exists occurs or does so, and does so in the place, time and manner that it does.”[4]  While the agnosticism argument might be true for weak atheism, it does not hold for strong atheism.  Strong atheism is defined as “an atheistic position that does not accept the concept of god”[5]  The strong atheist claims that the concept of God is flawed, or is based on flawed reasoning, and therefore meaningless.  In other words, the strong atheist claims that if there is no sufficient reason to believe a thing exists, then there is no sufficient reason to believe that it does exist. To say otherwise, would be to based conclusions on ignorance.  The strong atheist bases his conclusions on sufficient reason, plausibility and probability.

It is a given that the concept of “God” is verifiable to the theist: it must be the case that there is sufficient reason to believe.  But to the strong atheist, “God” is as verifiable as Santa Claus or unicorns.  The strong atheistic position maintains that the to say that “God” exists, if not simply meaningless, is so highly unlikely a proposition as to make it non-existent, and that the concept of “God” is unverifiable in any way.  The strong atheistic position is not based on scientific evidence because there can be no evidence of an undefined concept, but it is based on the foundation of scientific evidence: sufficient reasoning and probability.  To the strong atheist, “God” is simply meaningless in the philosophical sense, a belief by some that holds that there exists an entity that is unfathomable, and beyond any scientific concept whatsoever.  The strong atheist is one that expects sufficient reason for a concept before any belief-claim whatsoever is considered, and considers truth to be based in part on probability.  Such an atheist makes the claim that there is no “God” because the concept lacks any kind of definable, logical, and empirical means to be verified: scientifically or otherwise, and the existence of such an entity is highly improbable based on our knowledge so far. 

Because God’s existence cannot be verified in the way that the theist expects the atheist’s claim to be verified, the theistic argument falls prey to its own talons.  Because most theists do not base their beliefs on verifiable evidence, and because they do not consider truth as being defined by sufficient reason or probability, they must by their own admission admit that the very best that a theist can hope for is agnosticism.  Theists do not claim that God probably exists. Theists claim that God does exist, and such a claim requires evidence and warrant.  The “evidence” that theists have offered thus far has done nothing to prove that God exists.  The warrant for their “evidence” has proven dubious at best, and the inferences that they use in their arguments are weak, if existent at all.  One of the most popular arguments for the existence of God is intelligent design.  Intelligent design does not offer scientific reasons, nor does it use scientific reasoning.  The reasons that it does give are not credible given the scientific alternatives, and its conclusion falsely limits the possible outcomes of its own argument.  For these reasons and more intelligent design does not offer an intelligent argument, and is not a scientific theory at all.  The theist positing the agnostic argument for atheism is forced to accept the same agnostic argument in regard to his own belief-claim because he cannot offer up the type of evidence, the warrant for that evidence, and the inferences that would make his argument valid.    

The second argument entails the belief that atheism is a unified philosophy that is defined by political and social agendas only rather than being an epistemological and metaphysical proposition.  The argument is based on the belief that all atheism adheres to some political or social cause.  It claims that because atheists do not adhere to any religious dogma, they take the stance that all religious dogma is disallowed.  The claim is that this is a unified social philosophy against religion, and that it must be open to all the normal criticisms. The assumption that atheism is a unified philosophy is simply not true in any necessary sense.  The claim that atheism must be open to all the normal criticisms is accepted, and even welcomed by atheists.  First, an atheist is capable of holding any political or social philosophy.  An atheist can be a Marxist or a Capitalist.  An atheist can be a Socialist or a Democrat.  Atheistic stances are void of any political or social stance even though any political or social stance is an option for an atheist just as they are an option for a theist.

The word “philosophy” here is used in a single sense whereas it is capable of being used in many senses.  First, “philosophy” is literally defined as “the love of wisdom”.  An atheist can be, or does not have to be, a lover of wisdom.  Atheists, like all other people, make personal decisions as to their education, and are different as to their interest or apathy towards learning about the world around them, socially or otherwise.  There are perfectly happy and ignorant atheists in the world.  Secondly, “philosophy” can be defined as “critical study of fundamental beliefs”[6].  There are atheists that are not interested in the least in being critical of anything, much less fundamental beliefs.  Again, there are atheists who are deep thinkers, and there are those that could care less about rational analysis of any kind.  Lastly, the word “philosophy” can be defined as a personal principle or viewpoint. While it is necessary that by definition the atheist does adhere to the viewpoint that there is no theistic god, or that “God” is a meaningless concept, it is not necessary that an atheist adhere to any one definitive viewpoint of any kind.  An atheist can have social viewpoints as well as political viewpoints, but these viewpoints are not necessarily atheistic, just as the theist can have social or political viewpoints that are not necessarily theistic.  Atheism is a point of view that can be based on personal intuition or rational analysis.  So to claim that atheism is a unified philosophy that is directly related to a social or political stance is to misinterpret what it is to be atheistic.

            Many theists claim that atheism is not based on scientific evidence, but is simply a hypothesis.  First, if the theist makes such a claim, he must remember that his claim must apply to his own beliefs as well.  Secondly, while atheism is not based directly on scientific evidence, it is based on the same foundations as scientific conclusions.  The proposition that there is a theistic god is highly unlikely, it is based on extremely weak premises, it is undermined by alternative explanations concerning the creation of the universe, and is logically contradictory.  Recent cosmological research does not point to the universe being “created” by any thinking entity.  Rather, scientific research in cosmology points to the highly probable fact that the universe was created by purely natural forces that can be explained by scientific research.  Theists claim that the universe seems designed and so must be designed. But, order does not necessitate a creator.[7]  Atheism, while not outright supported by scientific evidence, is based in rationality, sufficient reason, and probability, but these are the foundations of science.  It is true that science is not in the business of supporting theistic or atheistic viewpoints.  However, the expectation of sufficient reason, rationality and the acceptance of probability rather than absolutism as the basis of truth supports atheistic viewpoints.  Atheism is not a scientific hypothesis, but it is certainly bolstered by scientific study.

The last claim, that atheism is not supported by logic, is similar to the agnostic argument.  In claiming that logic cannot deduce that there is not an entity that is theistic (omniscient, omnipotent, and all-benevolent), the theist concludes that the best that can be had from atheism is agnosticism.  But the theist is using a strawman argument rather than sound reasoning.  There are two types of logic: deductive and inductive.  Deductive logic studies the relationships between true or false statements.  Deductive logic studies how things are said.  Through deductive reasoning, we can have valid, invalid or sound arguments, invalid arguments being the big no-no because they allow true premises to lead to false conclusions. This allowance destroys our capacity to rely upon deductive logic to give us true conclusions.  The strength of deductive logic is that if it can be proven that the premises of an argument are in fact true, deductive logic can guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Deductive logic is useful for finding possible truth values for statements used in arguments, and it is useful to find out if arguments are invalid.  However, its weakness is that premises are extremely difficult to be proven true or false.  Take a simple logical example:

If God exists, then God created the universe.

God does not exist.

So, God did not create the universe

 

           

This is a valid argument that “proves” that God did not create the universe, and such an argument can be used to “prove” the theistic argument that God does exist and that he did create the universe as well.  Deductive logic is a useful tool, but does not prove or disprove atheistic or theistic arguments.  What does prove the atheistic argument to be much more likely than the theistic argument is inductive logic.  Inductive logic concerns the content of arguments.  Its strength is that it can virtually guarantee the truth of its premises, but it can never guarantee absolute conclusions.  Inductive logic is the logic most used in modern day sciences, and as such bolsters the atheistic argument as well.

Four basic arguments against the possibility of atheism have been addressed here.  Although basic, they are typical of theistic arguments.  First, theistic arguments rely upon strawman fallacies and misrepresentation to bolster their viewpoints.  While weak atheism can be construed as a form of agnosticism, strong atheism cannot.  Secondly, atheism is in no way linked to any social or political agenda.  In fact, the term atheism is defined simply as “without theism”.  The fact that one or another social or political group has espoused atheism is in no way proof that atheism is a social or political philosophy.   Thirdly, atheism is not proven by science, and cannot be proven scientifically because it is not in any way a scientific theory.  That being said, atheistic arguments are bolstered by the same foundations as the sciences are: sufficient reason, probability, and verifiable evidence. Lastly, the argument that atheism is not supported by logic is simply untrue.  Such propositions are only further use of misrepresentation and unwarranted assumptions that are the mainstay of theistic arguments on the whole.  The fact is, atheism is not only a possible philosophical viewpoint, but is one that is honest, that is not hindered by any single agenda, that bolstered by our knowledge of the universe and the methods that we obtain such knowledge, and that is the most sensible.