Atheism: Belief Denial or Something More?

Does Atheism simply imply a lack of belief? Or does it signify something more? The question lies on the fault line between plenty of ongoing religious philosophical debates.  Jake Cordero weighs in.

---

One common ploy among atheist thinkers, when defending their viewpoint, is paradoxically to argue that they have nothing to defend. The argument goes something like this: atheists make no claim about God’s existence, and, as such, they have asserted nothing that requires a defense. In this very straight-forward formulation, the non-existence of God becomes the default. Atheists typically then follow this argument with a contrary assertion about theists. That is, they say that theists must meet an evidentiary burden if they wish to defend their position logically. This is the case because theists are making a positive assertion about God’s existence. 

Although there is no proof to be had one way or the other, I nonetheless agree with their second underlying argument about theists. What I dispute, however, is the notion that the atheist viewpoint is always exempt from evidentiary requirements. Rather, I believe this argument constitutes a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand by those who typically wield it.

TWO STATES OF AFFAIRS

For the sake of argument, consider two postulated states of affairs: “God exists” or “God does not exist.” Each of these states of affairs carries broad ontological and cosmological implications as well as implications for how we view the world and where we find meaning. Both postulated states also have their own adherents and neither is empirically verifiable. In order to deliberate between the two one must choose a side and that requires a statement of belief or a claim. For an atheist, one way of doing so would be by reformulating the statement “I do not believe in God” (an expression of non-belief that could be interpreted as not inviting debate) to “I believe in the state of affairs in which God does not exist.” Reformulated in this more robust fashion, atheism becomes a viewpoint requiring a positive defense if one wishes to convince others of its legitimacy.

Now, an atheist might obviously object that they have no desire to “reformulate” their position as a “statement of belief” and are under no obligation to do so. That is, one could stick to one’s guns by asserting only the broadest definition of atheism, i.e., “an absence of belief in the existence of deities.” Fair enough. But it quickly becomes clear that anyone who holds such a position is not really asserting anything at all about God’s existence. They are making no claim. Certainly that’s their point, but It nonetheless also follows that such a person would not contradict herself if she went on to say “neither do I believe in God’s non-existence.” After all, neither of these negative statements require a defense — even if asserted by the same person — and in fact, one assertion viewed in this way implies the other.

To say one makes no claim about God’s existence in this extreme agnostic sense is to say that one refuses to make a choice between either state of affairs I postulated earlier. It is the same as saying that one holds no opinion on the matter. This is a perfectly reasonably position to take, of course, but not one that anyone who advocates on behalf of atheism in the public square truly espouses. There are many different sorts of atheists in the world and many hold subtly different views, but by identifying oneself as an atheist in the public sphere one is very clearly signaling an opinion on this foundational question. This opinion may take the from of a hard claim about God’s non-existence, or it may be a very soft one, but it is a claim. They have made a choice.

“WHAT WE CANNOT SPEAK OF WE MUST PASS OVER IN SILENCE”

Here’s another more concrete example. To express non-belief in God in a purely agnostic sense is similar to me saying  “I do not believe Homer was a real person.” But in the case of Homer, I must simultaneously admit that neither do I believe he was NOT a real person. This is because my first assertion speaks to my lack of position on Homer’s real world existence — one way or the other. If I am truly agnostic on this question (which I am because I do not know whether Homer was a real person or not) it is pointless for me to argue the case. I have refused to make a choice in this instance, I make no claim, and so am left with two empty assertions. This state of affairs reminds me of the famous quote from the philosopher Wittgenstein: “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”

But, again, this is self-evidently not the position held by many atheists who wield the no-defense-needed argument in the public square. They do have an opinion on the existence of God and theism and all the rest, and have absolutely no desire to pass over the question in silence. They have chosen some form of the positive claim about their worldview in the earlier sense I described, i.e, “I believe in the state of affairs in which God does not exist.” And so it would seem they have switched their definition midstream of what it means to be an atheist. This is what I referred to in my statement earlier regarding rhetorical sleight of hand.

And here’s one final point. Many thoughtful atheists attempt to avoid overstating their case by calling themselves “agnostic atheists.” While this conditional label would seem to allow them to have it both ways, in reality it represents a tacit concession to the argument I’ve made here. That’s because that with it, an atheist simultaneously concedes that absolute proof of God’s non-existence is unattainable, but for them it still represents a reasonable claim. And that invites a defense.

— Jake Cordero