Is Atheism Significant Only to Theists?

Ciceronianus

Judging by the word itself, it seems apparent that atheism would, by definition, address theism only. Is atheism then a concern of theists only, and atheists concerned only with refuting the theist conception of God? Is anyone but a theist or a person who is interested in defending, or explaining or justifying theism interested in denouncing atheism or questioning it?

It strikes me that someone who isn't a theist would find it hard to be perturbed by atheism, or even interested in it. It's difficult for me to imagine someone holding, for example, the Stoic view of God or that of Spinoza from being so riled by atheism as to do battle with those who claim to be atheists. Nor do I think atheists would be very eager to denounce or renounce pantheism or deism, They could, of course, claim there is no evidence for either belief, but who would care? What is there to get excited or indignant about?

Theism breeds all sorts of convictions, demands, wishes, conclusions, dreams, hopes, institutions,strictures and emotions (not to mention wars and other forms of violence). Theists are invested in theism, they rely on it. God created the universe, and me, and you, and so that means a plan, a destiny, a purpose, etc. which is to be defended, or revered. Thus the favorite claim of 19th century folk suddenly encountering reasons for disbelief--"Without God, anything is permitted!" Characters in Dostoyevsky novels, without God, rush around killing old ladies and themselves.

The debate over atheism thus seems to me to be one engaged in only by those whose view of God is narrow and personal. That's not to say that atheists should be silent when challenged or attacked, but only to comment on the limitations of the dispute.

Janus

↪Ciceronianus

A more interesting question would be whether atheists generally are intent on refuting belief in any and all forms of deity or transcendence. And if so, what motivates them to concern themselves with the beliefs of others. Are atheists commonly also atheologists? Antitheists, antitheologists and antimetaphysicians perhaps?

Ciceronianus

A more interesting question would be whether atheists generally are intent on refuting belief in any and all forms of deity or transcendence. And if so, what motivates them to concern themselves with the beliefs of others. — Janus

I think that question would arise, yes, if that turns out to be the case.

Janus

↪Ciceronianus

How then will it be determined whether that turns out to be the case?

Ciceronianus

↪Janus

The only way I know of to do that, here, is if those who are atheists respond to the OP saying they refute belief in any form. I'm not aware of any book or article addressing atheist views on Spinoza's God, for example.

Tom Storm

Theism breeds all sorts of convictions, demands, wishes, conclusions, dreams, hopes, institutions,strictures and emotions (not to mention wars and other forms of violence). Theists are invested in theism, they rely on it. God created the universe, and me, and you, and so that means a plan, a destiny, a purpose, etc. which is to be defended, or revered. Thus the favorite claim of 19th century folk suddenly encountering reasons for disbelief--"Without God, anything is permitted!" Characters in Dostoyevsky novels, without God, rush around killing old ladies and themselves. — Ciceronianus

An insightful OP.

There are brands of atheist who are skeptical of any kind of transcendent claim as @Janus has stated. Idealism, higher consciousness, certain interpretations of QM are all in scope.

I don't believe in ontological idealism or in higher consciousness either (I don't say they are untrue, I just have no good reason to accept them at this point) but these beliefs are separate to my disbelief in god/s. God of course is just a word and understood by some (Rupert Spira springs to mind) as more primitive language for oneness or higher awareness.

I'm not aware of any book or article addressing atheist views on Spinoza's God, for example. — Ciceronianus

Indeed. The shrill claims of fundamentalism primarily has turned many atheists into verbal pugilists.

Janus

I'm not aware of any book or article addressing atheist views on Spinoza's God, for example. — Ciceronianus

Nor am I.

Ciceronianus

I don't believe in ontological idealism or in higher consciousness either (I don't say they are untrue, I just have no good reason to accept them at this point) but these beliefs are separate to my disbelief in god/s. God of course is just a word and understood by some (Rupert Spira springs to mind) as more primitive language for oneness or higher awareness. — Tom Storm

I'm partial to the thought of an immanent deity, and think that the universe evokes a belief in such a deity, as some Stoics claim (and perhaps Spinoza as well), or as C.S. Peirce suggests with his "Musement." I find that more reasonable than a theist God in that it's less preposterous. But evocation isn't proof and I wouldn't pretend otherwise.

Wayfarer

↪Ciceronianus

I sometimes reflect on the asymmetry between atheism and theism. As far as believers are concerned, God is not a social theory or internet talking point, but the most important fact about life. For them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. Whereas for atheism, it's only a matter of a false belief, which can't have any significance beyond the sociological or affective, because it doesn't stand for anything real in the first place. And I can't see any way to square that circle.

praxis

As far as believers are concerned, God is not a social theory or internet talking point, but the most important fact about life. For them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. — Wayfarer

Well, there's certainly no evidence that Theists have everlasting life, and they rarely behave as though they actually believe it.

Janus

I sometimes reflect on the asymmetry between atheism and theism. As far as believers are concerned, God is not a social theory or internet talking point, but the most important fact about life. For them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. Whereas for atheism, it's only a matter of a false belief, which can't have any significance beyond the sociological or affective, because it doesn't stand for anything real in the first place. And I can't see any way to square that circle. — Wayfarer

Yes, there is an asymmetry, one might even say a fundamental misunderstanding, there between atheism and (at least some forms of) theism. I'm referring to the non-propositional aspect of religion; religion as praxis; atheism would seem to entail no particular praxis.

Atheism and theism do mirror one another in their guises as fundamentalisms; as counterarguments about "what is the case". They also mirror one another in their guises as ideology; purporting to know what it is right or best to believe for everyone in general.

I think the perceived sociological, and even affective, implications of theistic belief or lack of it, are not insignificant concerns for either atheists or theists, or at least not for the serious ones.

and they rarely behave as though they actually believe it. — praxis

That's a rather sweeping statement!

Tom Storm

Well, there's certainly no evidence that Theists have everlasting life, and they rarely behave as though they actually believe it. — praxis

That's for sure. Nor do they seem to be morally superior to non believers or the practices of other religions.

or them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. Whereas for atheism, it's only a matter of a false belief, which can't have any significance beyond the sociological or affective, because it doesn't stand for anything real in the first place. And I can't see any way to square that circle. — Wayfarer

I guess this can be true for a certain segment of believers, especially at the shallow end of the pool where most of the noise is. But the Christians I know do not necessarily think there is a heaven or even that God can be understood in any way. They totally get atheism as a reasonable view, just don't share it - sensus divinitatis and all that.

Atheism and theism do mirror one another in their guises as fundamentalisms; as counterarguments about "what is the case". They also mirror one another in their guises as ideology; purporting to know what it is right or best to believe for everyone in general. — Janus

I think they can come to mirror each other more because to a great extent atheism's chief fight is with fundamentalism, which, for all the claims of faith, is founded on argumentation - proofs of god, etc, which has shoehorned a lot of freethinking into contesting these arguments. And fair enough.

Australia is largely secular and most atheists I meet here have no interest in the arguments about god in either direction and have no internet in atheism as a thought system. They just take it for granted that god ideas are irrelevant. Good on them, but I prefer to try to justify my beliefs, even if this is hopelessly romantic.

praxis

That's a rather sweeping statement! — Janus

I don't seem to have stirred up any disagreement.

Janus

I think they can come to mirror each other more because to a great extent atheism's chief fight is with fundamentalism, which, for all the claims of faith, is founded on argumentation - proofs of god, etc, which has shoehorned a lot of freethinking into contesting these arguments. And fair enough. — Tom Storm

Yes, I share atheism's anti-fundamentalism, but when this becomes itself a fundamentalist crusade against all forms and shades of theism, I part company with atheists.

I don't think fundamentalists are really concerned with any rational arguments for the existence of God; I think they generally take scripture as being the literal word of God, and believe that God speaks to them through the Book.

I have a personal bias against "proofs" of God; I think they, like any deductive arguments, are only as good as their premises, and the premises come down to faith, even if many claim to directly know via personal experience.

I think that such claims ignore the fact that experience doesn't directly tell us anything propositional at all about the nature of reality, about God, immortality or freedom.

As Kant pointed out practical reason is always the handmaid to faith and conviction.

god must be atheist

Australia is largely secular and most atheists I meet here have no interest in the arguments about god in either direction and have no internet in atheism as a thought system. — Tom Storm

Atheism is not a thought system. Theism is. Mostly.

I raise my hat to Australian secularists. (What's the difference between a secularist and an atheist?) According to my understanding, secularism is a movement that strives to separate politics from religions. The word has developed a taste of atheism, but that is not necessarily true. Secularists simply secule the state from the church.

Atheists don't form clubs because there is not much to discuss about atheism. "Are you an atheist, too?" "Yes, I am." "Me too." And that's where the conversation ends.

The only thing that atheists can discuss, are the faults with theism and with religions. And boy, do we do that vigorously.

To answer the OP: atheism is significant to atheists as much as theism is significant to theists; and atheism is significant to theists as much as theism is significant to atheists. In my opinion, anyway.

Janus

I don't seem to have stirred up any disagreement. — praxis

Disagreement with your statement or with your justification for making it? I don't pretend to know whether there are many theists who act as though they believe in everlasting life, since I have met so vanishingly few of them in relation to how many there presumably are in the world.

god must be atheist

Yes, I share atheism's anti-fundamentalism, but when this becomes itself a fundamentalist crusade against all forms and shades of theism, I part company with atheists. — Janus

I don't see how atheists can be partial to non-fundamentalist religions. Unless, of course, they practice patience, and the atheists do not try to proselyze.

Ciceronianus

For them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. — Wayfarer

Yes. But I don't understand the need, or even the desire, they would have in engaging with atheists, unless they feel it's possible to contend with them on their "home field" as it were. I've never understood Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis and Chesterton, or Cardinal Newman, because I think their arguments, such as they are, don't work. Nor is there any need (or so I think) to for them to debate with atheists. They need only believe.

Wayfarer

↪Ciceronianus

If you're not inclined to believe it, no argument will suffice. I read somewhere that Aquinas's 'five proofs' and other such arguments were never intended as apologetics or conversion devices but as edifying exercises for the faithful.

I have some experience with Pure Land Buddhism. This is very much a faith-based religion, where enlightenment is realised through recitation of the name of Amidha Buddha. One of their articles of faith is 'not engaging in religious disputes'. Probably wise.

Janus

I don't see how atheists can be partial to non-fundamentalist religions. Unless, of course, they practice patience, and the atheists do not try to proselyze. — god must be atheist

Did you mean to write "and the theists do not try to proselytize"? Otherwise I can't make sense of your statement.

Tom Storm

I don't think fundamentalists are really concerned with any rational arguments for the existence of God; I think they generally take scripture as being the literal word of God, and believe that God speaks to them through the Book. — Janus

Right now the presuppostionalists (via Kant's TAG) are huge in evangelical Christianity, as are the Lane Craig neophyte apologists who are all about Aquinas 5 ways arguments. Curiously many are better on reason than they are on the Bible which most appear not to have read. The internet is bursting with Christians and Muslims proving god via reason.

I think that such claims ignore the fact that experience doesn't directly tell us anything propositional at all about the nature of reality, about God, immortality or freedom. — Janus

Much debate to me seems to be emotion dressed up in rationalist clothing.

I raise my hat to Australian secularists. (What's the difference between a secularist and an atheist?) — god must be atheist

I know a few Christians who are secularists on the premise below:

Secularists simply secule the state from the church. — god must be atheist

A secular society can support the state to nourish ecumenical expressions of faith in a manner a theocracy could struggle to do.

Wayfarer

Secular means 'pertaining to the state'. Concerns things like making the trains run on time and building bridges and the like. A secular state allows for the practice of any religion or none, despite the fact that it is routinely interpreted to mean that 'none' is better than 'any'.

Tom Storm

I've never understood Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis and Chesterton, or Cardinal Newman, because I think their arguments, such as they are, don't work. Nor is there any need (or so I think) to for them to debate with atheists. They need only believe. — Ciceronianus

Of course there is a track record of conversion into religions by apologists - hence proselytizing culture - and I've also seen this in reverse having met a number of atheists who left fundamentalisms because of arguments they encountered against their version of god. People do change teams and it's usually a process.

Moliere

People do change teams. — Tom Storm

That was the phenomena I was trying to think of how best to put.

I kept getting stuck on possible uses of arguments for different teams, but I think the phenomena of people switching sides explains a lot of these terms.

Janus

Right now the presuppostionalists (via Kant's TAG) are huge in evangelical Christianity, as are the Lane Craig neophyte apologists who are all about Aquinas 5 ways arguments. Curiously many are better on reason than they are on the Bible which most appear not to have read. The internet is bursting with Christians and Muslims proving god via reason. — Tom Storm

Would you say they qualify as fundamentalists? My idea of fundamentalists is that they believe the bible is literally the word of God and thus is infallible.

Much debate to me seems to be emotion dressed up in rationalist clothing. — Tom Storm

I agree. What I wanted to highlight there, though, is the idea that if you experience God speaking to you, then you have direct knowledge that God exists.

I think the same goes for claims that karma or rebirth is real; if someone who has permanently attained a state of non-dual awareness says that they are real, then they must be real because the claim that they are real comes from the direct knowing that is believed to characterize enlightenment.

I disagree with that because I don't believe anything discursive (dualistic) can be known non-dually. All such experiences are subject to subsequent dualistic interpretations, usually in terms of the metaphysical beliefs embedded in the cultural context the enlightened one or non-dual experiencer find themselves within.

Moliere

So, for instance, atheism -- at least as a term -- is significant to me because it explains a difference between how I was raised, and how I am. It's the transition itself which brings meaning to the term.

More and more I'm more attracted to the label apatheist. @Postmodern Beatnik introduced me to the term and it took a minute but now I like it. @Ciceronianus In God's Great Country, as you put it, it has a stronger connotation than one might suspect up front.

But it only has appeal because I think the a/theist terms "make sense" in certain parts of God's Great Country.

Tom Storm

↪Moliere

Yes, it's a battle of hearts and minds out there. I have met a number of Christians who said they came to the religion via CS Lewis' famous book, Mere Christianity. But I also met former Baptists and Catholics who credit Russell's famous work as a key reason they turned. No doubt arguments play a role.

My idea of fundamentalists is that they believe the bible is literally the word of God and thus is infallible. — Janus

Are there not grades if fundamentalism? But you may be right. My grandmother was a fundamentalist - Dutch reformed. She had not read the Bible (like many fundamentalists as I was later to discover). They hold this position of inerrancy without even knowing the text. Probably no different to believing in god with no evidence. :joke: I asked her about man landing on the moon. "Didn't happen,' she said. 'I know god is up there, not astronauts. The Bible says so.' Not all fundies are that fundamental.

atheism -- at least as a term -- is significant to me because it explains a difference between how I was raised, and how I am. It's the transition itself which brings meaning to the term. — Moliere

Thank you, that's a really evocative way to put it.

Janus

↪Tom Storm

fundamentalist
noun [ C ]
religion
uk
/ˌfʌn.dəˈmen.təl.ɪst/ us
/ˌfʌn.dəˈmen.t̬əl.ɪst/
someone who believes in traditional forms of a religion, or believes that what is written in a holy book, such as the Christian Bible, is completely true:
Muslim/Christian fundamentalists
The organization had been taken over by religious fundamentalists.

From here:

Also see Fundamentalism.

praxis

I don't pretend to know whether there are many theists who act as though they believe in everlasting life, since I have met so vanishingly few of them in relation to how many there presumably are in the world. — Janus

I expect that anyone who believes in life everlasting would not be materialistic, for instance, yet Christians, at least in the US, seem quite ordinary in that regard.

Tom Storm

someone who believes in traditional forms of a religion,or believes that what is written in a holy book, — Janus

Sounds like it is a category open to a range of possibilities. I think fundamentalism is aspirational - rarely achieved. Because few of them seem to follow many of the Bible or Koran's requirements. Believing something is true is not the same thing as knowing what it is or living as if it is is true, right? Sartre might even call this bad faith, but then he's a philandering Commie heathen.

Moliere

↪praxis

Oh, no.

They aren't materialistic.

It's their spirituality which grants them the right to their bounty.

Is Atheism Significant Only to Theists?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions