Atheism is Not a Belief System (Does This Really Need Repeating?)

Over and over again, atheists have to keep repeating the fact that atheism is not a belief system, an ideology, a religion, a philosophy, or anything similar. What makes this especially annoying is that even if we pretend that atheism were just the denial of the existence of gods rather than a mere disbelief in god, that still wouldn't qualify as a belief system — a single belief cannot be a belief system. Thus, the most common misunderstanding about atheism contradicts this misunderstanding, but it still has to be corrected on a regular basis.

Stan Nelson, news editor of the Pueblo Chieftain, writes:

Christians always should pay attention when atheists speak, and especially when they take the lectern in the public square. They bring up a lot of important points that believers should think about.

For one example, Dawkins' strong suit is his argument against the rationality of belief in God.

Unfortunately, not everything he writes is as fair or as accurate:

The truth is that atheism and religion stand on the same, blood-soaked level, one as culpable as the other. But the reason for that is atheism and religion are not strict opposites. Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but of faith, specifically in God or, for that matter, any god or gods. Religion is the demonstration of faith, defined in prosaic terms in James' epistle: "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

Faith is the basic idea of belief - "the substance of things hoped for," as the writer of Hebrews put it. Does faith kill? Well, we can say that people have been killed because of their faith. Often, those people accepted their beliefs despite the threat of death....

So we're left with the dismal fact that religion and atheism can kill, because as practical belief systems, they allow such abuse, even if they should not. Investigation and experience tell us, however, that faith can and does save life, sometimes in a quite practical sense, in too many examples to list here.

Does atheism do that?

Stan Nelson comes so close to saying the right and accurate things, but then at the last minute falls short. Because of this, I decided that instead of immediately writing a critical blog post, I thought I would write directly to Stan Nelson. I thought that it would be more productive and might even lead to real progress.

Oh, how wrong I was. Here is my first email:

You came so close to saying so many correct things about atheism, but then at the last moments fell so far short, that your column was actually more disappointing that the vast majority of pieces which completely misrepresent atheism from beginning to end.

This was true, almost: "Atheism is not the opposite of religion, but of faith, specifically in God or, for that matter, any god or gods."

It would be more accurate to say that atheism is not the opposite of religion, but the opposite of theism - or, more accurately, the lack of theism. A theist is a person who believes in at least one god of some sort, but they don't necessarily have "faith" in the traditional Christian sense. An atheist is a person without theism, not simply without a traditional Christian sort of theism.

Here, however, you go very wrong: "So we're left with the dismal fact that religion and atheism can kill, because as practical belief systems, they allow such abuse, even if they should not."

This is an error that many make. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.

While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. A political party founded on Christianity would probably qualify as a theistic ideology.

All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.

All this is why your final comment goes so far wrong: "Investigation and experience tell us, however, that faith can and does save life, sometimes in a quite practical sense, in too many examples to list here. Does atheism do that?"

You're comparing apples and oranges here: specific types of theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) against a mere data point that is part of various belief systems (atheism). Does the absence of belief in angels save a life? Does the absence of belief in aliens save a life? Those are nonsensical questions. It would also be nonsensical to ask if the mere presence of such beliefs save life. The same is true about the presence or absence of belief in gods. Such questions only make sense about coherent belief systems which are capable of inspiring or motivating people to action, not data points which by themselves are unable or at least highly unlikely to motivate anyone in any direction.

What you need to compare is theistic belief systems against atheistic belief systems, not theism against atheistic belief systems or atheism against theistic belief systems. Compare theistic Christianity to atheistic Buddhism, or theistic Islam to atheistic Humanism. Those are just comparisons. Mere atheism and theism, with nothing added, don't motivate anyone to do anything. Theistic and atheistic belief systems, which incorporate a great deal more than the mere presence or absence of belief in any gods, may motivate people to do good or ill.

Stan Nelson's response: "The argument that atheism is not a belief system is just too illogical."

That's pretty disappointing — especially in how quickly dismissive the response was. There is no effort to either directly reject anything I wrote or to substantively support the opposite. I would have expected a newspaper's editor to care about learning something new and gaining information about the world. However, I tried to persevere by explaining what the definition of atheism is. I included:

When you described atheism as a belief system, you made a common error but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you. If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?

After a couple of minutes, you'll find that you can't point to any such thing. There is no "belief system" shared by all those atheists. Some, like the Objectivists and communists, are practically at each other's throats they disagree on so much. These are all very different and incompatible belief systems that atheists hold, just as theists all hold different, varying, and incompatible belief systems. If you tell me you're a theist, there is nothing I can assume about any of your other beliefs. When I tell you I'm an atheist, there is nothing you can assume about any of my other beliefs.

That's to be expected if theism and atheism aren't belief systems.

Unfortunately, Stan Nelson basically ignored everything I wrote and continued to insist that it's "illogical" for atheism to be a belief system, saying in part:

The irony of unbelief is that is stands as a belief. Therefore, no belief system - even if it's a belief in nothing - is based on unbelief. And therefore, atheism supports a belief system, and therefore, stands as a belief system.

Pretty sad that someone who doesn't understand that is a source author for about.com - and apparently has spent a great deal of energy in support of an argument (which it still is) that doesn't hold water.

Even if we define atheism very narrowly as the denial of the existence of any gods, Stan Nelson never explains how that can be a belief system. I have spent a fair amount of time writing out explanations about this. For some reason, there are quite a few religious theists — mostly Christians — who can't wrap their minds around the idea that an absence of belief in gods is not and cannot, by definition, be a belief system. People have no trouble recognizing that an absence of belief in elves is not a belief system, that a denial of the existence of Bigfoot is not a belief system, and that not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

When the word "god" enters the conversation, though, all that common sense suddenly evaporates. I've never been able to figure out why, but I thought it a good idea to have multiple lines of explanation available for those who have trouble understanding the basics. Unfortunately, it seems that I have failed. Despite how simple the definition is, I have been unable to make it comprehensible to Stan Nelson.

In cases like Stan Nelson's, though, it's hard not to describe the situation as anything less than sheer arrogance: despite apparently knowing absolutely nothing about atheism or atheists, he still feels qualified to assert that he has a better understanding about the "real nature" of atheism than atheists themselves. In fact, he appears to be so convinced of his position that he doesn't feel any need to justify, explain, or support it — it appears that he considers it sufficient to just keep repeating it over and over. He doesn't need to explain why so many others are wrong nor does he need to explain why his position is correct; instead, he just needs to say it and that should settle matters.

Perhaps others can do better? If you have an idea about how better explain why atheism alone cannot be an entire belief system, you can contact Stan Nelson via his newspaper email address. You can also write a Letter to the Editor (also: email) to complain about a news editor who misrepresents the topic of his editorial, or even just write to the managing editor if you really want (though I'm not sure what that would accomplish). If you do write anything, please post your messages here so we can all learn more.