Difference between revisions of "Atheism" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
m ({{Contracted}})
(45 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Contracted}}
+
{{Copyedited}}{{2Copyedited}}{{Ebcompleted}}{{Paid}}{{Approved}}{{Submitted}} {{Images OK}}  
'''Atheism''', (from privative ''a-'' + ''theos'' "god") refers in its broadest sense to the absence of [[theism]], the belief in the existence of [[deity|deities]]. The term also encompasses groups or individuals who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of ''atheism'', however, typically label as atheists only those people who affirmatively assert the nonexistence of gods, and classify less pointed nonbelievers as [[agnosticism|agnostics]] or simply [[nontheism|non-theists]]. Many people who self-identify as atheists do tend to share common [[skepticism|skeptical]] concerns regarding the evidence or lack thereof of the many deities and creation stories professed in mythology. Further, they may question the goodness and morality of religions, which have often brought [[holy wars]], [[inquisitions]] and [[factionalism]] as often as they have brought peace. Yet while some adhere to philosophies such as [[humanism]], [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] and [[materialism]], there is no single [[ideology]] that all atheists share, nor does atheism as a whole have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. Indeed, atheism is inspired by many rationales, encompassing personal, [[scientific]], social, philosophical, and historical reasoning. Although atheism is commonly equated with [[irreligion]] in Western culture, some forms of religious beliefs (such as [[Buddhism]] and [[Jainism]]), can be described as atheistic. A 2004 survey by the CIA in the World Factbook estimates about 12.5% of the world's population are non-religious, and about 2.4% are specifically atheist.  
+
'''Atheism''' (from [[Greek language|Greek]]: ''a'' + ''theos'' + ''ismos'' "not believing in god") refers in its broadest sense to a denial of [[theism]] (the belief in the existence of a single deity or deities). Atheism has many shades and types. Some atheists strongly deny the existence of [[God]] (or any form of deity) and attack theistic claims. Yet certainty as to the non-existence of God is as much a belief as is [[religion]] and rests on equally unprovable claims. Just as religious believers range from the ecumenical to the narrow-minded, atheists range from those for whom it is a matter of personal philosophy to those who are militantly hostile to religion.
 +
{{readout||right|250px|"Positive" or "strong" atheism is the assertion that no deities exist while "negative" or "weak" atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of any deity}}
 +
Atheism often buttresses its case on [[science]], yet many modern scientists, far from being atheists, have argued that science is not incompatible with theism.  
  
==History==
+
Some traditional religious belief systems are said to be "atheist" or "non-theist," but this can be misleading. While [[Jainism]] technically can be described as philosophically [[materialism|materialist]] (and even this is subtle vis-à-vis the divine), the claim about [[Buddhism]] being atheistic is more difficult to make. Metaphysical questions put to the [[Buddha]] about whether or not God exists received from him one of his famous "silences." It is inaccurate to deduce from this that the Buddha denied the existence of God. His silence had far more to do with the distracting nature of speculation and dogma than it had to do with the existence or non-existence of God.  
Although the actual term atheism originated in 16th Century France, ideas that would be recognized as atheistic today existed even before Classical Antiquity. In the Far East, a contemplative life not centered on the idea of gods was promoted in the [[6th century B.C.E.]] by the [[Taoism|Taoist]] philosopher [[Lao Tzu]] and his contemporary [[Siddhartha Gautama]] or [[Buddha]], founder of [[Buddhism]]. Similarly, Epicurus proposed theories in the 4th century B.C.E. that can be classified as atheistic, including a lack of belief in an afterlife, though he remained ambiguous concerning the actual existence of deities. Punishments for atheism were strict in Ancient Greece: before Epicurus, Socrates was sentenced to death partly on the grounds that he was an atheist, although he did express belief in several forms of divinity, as recorded in Plato's Apology. Atheism disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence in the 4th century CE, though the criminal connotation attached to atheistic ideas would persist until the Renaissance. Due the climate of persecution in [[Europe]] during the [[Middle Ages]], hardly any expression of strong atheism is known from this period, save for the proclamations of [[Pope Boniface VIII]], who noted that Christianity was a fully human invention while still insisting on the political primacy of the church. Contemporaneously, the hedonistic and atheistic [[Carvaka]] school, which continued until the fourteenth century, flourished in [[India]].  
+
{{toc}}
 +
Many people living in the West have the impression that atheism is on the rise around the world, and that the belief in God is being replaced with a more secular-oriented worldview. However, this view is not confirmed. Studies have consistently shown that contrary to popular assumptions, religious membership is actually increasing globally.  
  
During the Age of [[Enlightenment]], the concept of atheism re-emerged as an accusation against those who questioned the religious status quo, such as Voltaire, Hobbes and Marlowe. However, by the late 18th century it had become the philosophical position of a growing minority, headed by the openly atheistic works of [[Baron d'Holbach|Paul Baron d'Holbach]]. In the 19th century, atheism became a powerful political tool with the writings of [[Ludwig Feuerbach]], who claimed God was a fictional projection fabricated by man. This idea greatly influenced economist [[Karl Marx]], the founding father of Communism, who believed that labourers turn to religion in order to dull the pain caused by the reality of social situations. Religion, Marx claimed subsequently renders the working class amenable to [[social control]] and exploitation. [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] summed up the 19th century popularity of atheism when he coined the aphorism "God is dead".  By the 20th century, along with the spread of [[rationalism]] and secular humanism, atheism had become common, particularly among scientists. Regardless, atheists were still persecuted on occassion. Most notably, during [[World War II]] the [[Nazism|Nazis]] placed atheists alongside socialists, communists and Jews by lumping these groups together in a complex conspiracy theory. By the late 20th century, atheism also became a staple of the various Communist states, which helped to resurrect some of the negative connotations of atheism in places where anti-communism was widespread. This was particularly common in the United States, where atheism became synonymous with being unpatriotic during the Cold War in a similar, but less extreme form, as it had in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler.
+
==The Rationale of Atheism==
 +
Atheism is a belief that is held for a variety of reasons.  
  
==Reasons for atheism==
+
===Logical reasons===
===Philosophical and logical reasons===
+
Some atheists base their stance on philosophical grounds, arguing that their position is based on [[logic]]al rejection of theistic claims. Indeed, many atheists claim that their view is merely the absence of a certain belief, suggesting that the burden of proving God's existence is upon theists. In this line of thought, it follows that if theism's arguments can be refuted, non-theism becomes the default position. Many atheists have argued for centuries against the most popular "proofs" of God's existence, noting problems in the theist lines of reasoning. Atheists who attack specific forms of theism often claim it as being self-contradictory. One of the most common arguments against the existence of the Christian God is the [[problem of evil]], which Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] has referred to as "atheism's killer argument." This line of reasoning claims that the presence of [[evil]] in the world is logically inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. Instead, atheists claim it is more coherent to conclude that God does not exist than to believe that He/She does exist but readily allows the promulgation of evil.
Some atheists base their stance on rational or philosophical grounds, arguing that their position is based on logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. Many atheists claim that their view is merely the absence of a certain belief; hence, the burden is upon theists to prove such an unlikely phenomena, rather than on atheists to deny it. Furthermore, it follows that if theism's arguments can be refuted, nontheism, as the only alternative, becomes the default position. As such, many atheists have argued for centuries against the most popular "proofs" of God's existence, noting problems in the theist line of reasoning. Chief among these problems is absence of evidence supporting theistic claims. The theist must show that there are spiritual facts beyond the world of common experience to assert empirical proof of god's existence, and atheists assert such facts have not been provided. Also, instead of simplifying the explanation of how nature works through the understanding of scientific principles, atheists claim that theism tremendously complicates the workings of the universe by introducing new questions like origin of god(s), their dwelling, style of life, exercising their powers, conflicts with laws of physics, unpredictability, and so forth. In addition, there are also many atheists who attack specific forms of theism as being self-contradictory. One of the most common arguments against the existence of a specific God is the [[problem of evil]]. Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]] has referred to this problem as "atheism's killer argument". This line of reasoning claims that the existence of evil in the world contradicts the existence of a benevolent God. Instead, atheists claim it is more coherent to conclude that God does not exist rather than believing that he does exist but readily allows the promulgation of evil.
+
 
 +
A form of atheism known as "ignosticism," asserts that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. It is a popular view among many [[logical positivism|logical positivists]] such as [[Rudolf Carnap]] and [[A. J. Ayer]], who claim that talk of gods is literally nonsensical. For them, theological statements (such as those affirming god's existence) cannot have any truth value, since they lack [[falsifiability]]. This refers to the fact that claims of transcendence and of metaphysical properties cannot be tested by empirical means and must therefore be rejected as null hypotheses. In ''Language, Truth and Logic'', Ayer stated that theism, atheism and [[agnosticism]] were equally meaningless terms, insofar as they treat the question of the existence of God as a real question. However, despite Ayer's criticism of atheism as a concept (perhaps using the definition typically associated with [[strong atheism]]), ignosticism is still considered as a form of atheism in most classifications of religious thought.
  
 
===Scientific reasons===
 
===Scientific reasons===
Many feel that the teaching that humankind and the universe were created by one or more deities is in blatant conflict with modern science, especially [[evolution]]. For some atheists this conflict is reason enough to reject theism. In contrast, some theists draw the opposite conclusion from the same conflict, and reject evolution in favor of [[Creation-evolution controversy|creationism]], despite the virtually complete consensus about evolution among scientists. Other theists accept that evolution happened and do not believe that there is a conflict. Evolutionary science, supported by a large body of [[Paleontology|paleontological]] and [[Genomics|genomic]] evidence and accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists, describes how complex life has developed through a slow process of random [[mutation]] and [[natural selection]]. The human race is merely one species among other which has resulted from this [[stochastic]] process. It is now known that humans share 98% of our genetic code with chimpanzees, 90% with mice, 21% with roundworms, and 7% with the bacterium [[E. coli]]. This humbling perspective is quite different from that of most theistic religions, which give humans a unique and central status. In the [[Abrahamic]] religions, for instance, humans are thought to be created "in God's image" and to be a qualitatively and spiritually different thing from the other "beasts of the Earth". Similarly, scientific findings such as that which identifies the Earth's Sun as only one undistinguished star among billions in the [[Milky Way]] (which itself is merely one undistinguished galaxy among billions), and that modern humans have existed at all for only 0.0015% of the [[age of the universe]], are seen by some atheists as rendering implausible the proposition that this universe was created by a deity with mankind in mind.
+
As a further development of the rationalist position, many feel that theories of divine creation blatantly conflict with modern science, especially [[evolution]]. For some atheists, this conflict is reason enough to reject theism. Evolutionary science, supported by a large body of [[Paleontology|paleontological]] and [[Genomics|genomic]] evidence and accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists, describes how complex life has developed through a slow process of random [[mutation]] and [[natural selection]]. It is now known that humans share 98 percent of our genetic code with [[chimpanzee]]s, 90 percent with [[mouse|mice]], 21 percent with [[roundworm]]s, and seven percent with the bacterium [[E. coli]]. This humbling perspective is quite different from that of most theistic traditions, such as the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, in which humans are thought to be created "in God's image" and are existentially distinguished from the other "beasts of the Earth." Similarly, astronomical facts, such as the recognition of Earth's [[Sun]] as only one undistinguished star among billions in the [[Milky Way]], are seen by some atheists as rendering implausible the proposition that this universe was created with mankind in mind. Finally, some atheists argue that religion emerged as a pseudo-scientific explanation for natural phenomena and that, with the progress of human scientific endeavor, these etiological myths have been rendered unnecessary.  
  
Furthermore, it has been put forth that religions in the past used supernatural entities and forces as an explanatory heuristic for physical phenomenon which were, at that time, beyond their intellectual grasp. In [[Ancient Greece]], for instance, numerous gods had dominion over natural phenomena, such as [[Helios]] the god of the sun, [[Zeus]] the god of thunder, and [[Poseidon]] the god of earthquakes and the sea. Any processes observed within these phenomena were explained through mythical stories involving the god. Thus, such deities with protoscientific explanatory powers have been playfully labelled [[Gods of the gaps]]. Some atheists claim, however, that with the progress of human scientific endeavour and the subsequent explanation of natural phenomena by way of the [[scientific method]], these gods of creation and explanation have been rendered unneccessary. Although this may leave room for a [[deist|deistic]] God who sets in place unchanging natural laws, such arguments as [[Hume's dictum]] and [[Occam's razor]] leave little room for a being even of this type. While the success of modern science and engineering in the absence of divine intervention could still be interpreted to imply that deities take a rather hands-off approach to the world, many atheists feel that the simplest explanation is that there are indeed no deities.
+
All this said, it is also true that there are many scientists, [[Isaac Newton|Newton]] and [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] among them, who do not believe that science is incompatible with the existence of God. [[Charles Darwin|Darwinian]] evolution, for example, can be understood as a method God developed for the propagation of life.
  
In concordance with the above lines of reasoning, studies have suggested that atheism is highly prevalent among modern [[scientist]]s. This tendency was already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1914, psychologist [[James H. Leuba]] found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. [[natural science|natural scientists]] expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, yielded a similar percentage of 60.7%. This figure burgeoned to 93% among the members of the [[National Academy of Sciences]]. Further, expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%. However, studies following Leuba's methods and questions only demonstrate disbelief in a specific type of God: a personal entity which interacts directly with human beings. Restriction to this version of "God" makes the study unlikely to give a true sense of the percentage of atheists, and instead gives only a percentage of those rejecting this particular type of deity.  Based on the questions in the study, many deists would have been classified as atheists.
+
===Personal and Practical reasons===
 +
In addition to using philosophical arguments, there are those atheists who cite social, psychological, and practical reasons for their beliefs. Many people are atheists not as a result of philosophical deliberation, but rather because of the means by which they were brought up or educated. Some people are atheists at least partly because of growing up in an environment where atheism is relatively common, such as those who are raised by atheist parents. Some people are led to atheism by unpleasant experiences with their inherited traditions.
  
===Social and personal reasons===
+
Some atheists claim that their beliefs have positive practical effects on their lives. For instance, atheism may allow one to open their mind to a wide variety of perspectives and worldviews since they are not committed to [[Dogma|dogmatic]] beliefs. However, since rigidly-held atheism may be a dogmatic belief, those with an open mind are more likely to be [[agnosticism|agnostics]]. Such atheists may hold that searching for explanations through natural science can be more beneficial than searching through faith, the latter of which often draws irreconcilable dividing lines between individuals with different beliefs.
In addition to atheists with philosophical concerns, there are those who cite social, psychological, practical, and other reasons for their beliefs. Many people are atheists not as a result of philosophical deliberation, but rather because of the means by which they were brought up or educated. Some people are atheists at least partly because of growing up in an environment where atheism is relatively common, such as those who are raised by atheist parents. Also, they may simply adopt the predominant beliefs of the culture in which they grew up. Just as people who grow up in a predominantly Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Christian community or culture are most likely to adopt the prevalent religion of that given locale, atheists contend that the same is true for themselves.
 
  
Some atheists claim that their beliefs have positive overall effects on a person's life. For instance, atheism may allow one to open their mind to a wide variety of perspectives and worldviews since they are not committed to dogmatic beliefs. Furthermore, some claim atheism to be more ethical or useful than theism. Such atheists may hold that searching for explanations through natural science is more beneficial than doing it through faith, the latter of which often draws irreconcilable dividing lines between individuals with different beliefs. Closely related are cases where atheists suggest the requirement to do what is right favors atheism, or at the very least, not supporting certain sects or practices of theism. Those who cannot accept the notion of an evil god are forced to conclude that any immoral religion is necessarily false. Arguments that theism promotes immorality often center around the contention that a great deal of violence, including [[religious war|war]], has been brought about by religious beliefs and practices. In fact, the toll upon humanity witnessed in the ultraviolent Thirty Years War (which spanned 1618 and 1648) between Protestants and Catholics, actually created a large amount of discontent with religious dogmatism. This, in combination with the Enlightenment focus upon rational classification in the following century, helped to create the impetus for understanding the various forms of religious belief. With all things considered, many thinkers began to construe [[deism]] or else atheism as the most rational forms of religious belief.
+
==Typology of atheism==
 +
The first attempts to define or develop a typology annotating the varieties of atheism occurred in religious [[apologetics]], which typically depicted atheism as a licentious belief system. Regardless, a diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since [[Plato]], and common distinctions have been established between ''practical atheism'' and ''contemplative'' or ''speculative atheism''. Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, or willful ignorance. Atheists in the practical sense were those who behaved as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist.  
  
Christian psychologist Paul Vitz (1999) argues that numerous individuals have psychological reasons for aligning themselves with atheism. That is, certain neurotic personality characteristics create psychological barriers to the act of believing in God, according to Vitz. However, such an assertion construes atheism as some kind of malady in the non-believer, marking Vitz's Christian bias. It is important to note that emotion and "feelings" play an important role not only for atheists, but also for theists, as well. An understanding of the psychological origins for belief in a god may contribute to some atheists' lack of religious belief.
+
On the other hand, speculative atheism, which involves philosophical contemplation of the nonexistence of god(s), was often denied by theists throughout history. That anyone might ''reason'' their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, or conceptualized as a hateful fight against God. These negative connotations are one of the reasons for the (continued) popularity of euphemistic alternative terms for atheists, like [[secularism|secularist]], [[empiricism|empiricist]], and [[agnosticism|agnostic]]. These connotations likely arise from attempts at suppression and from historical associations with practical atheism. Indeed, the term ''godless'' is still used as an abusive epithet. Thinkers such as J. C. A. Gaskin have abandoned the term ''atheism'' in favor of ''unbelief'', citing the fact that both the derogatory associations of the term and its vagueness in the public eye have rendered atheism an undesirable label. Despite these considerations, for others ''atheist'' has always been the preferred title, and several types of atheism have been identified by writers.
  
==Types and typologies of atheism==
 
 
===Weak and strong atheism===
 
===Weak and strong atheism===
The broadest definition of atheism is found in the dichotomy of weak and strong atheism. ''[[Weak atheism]]'', sometimes called ''soft atheism'', ''negative atheism'' or ''neutral atheism'', is the absence of belief in the existence of [[deity|deities]] without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. ''[[Strong atheism]]'', also known as ''hard atheism'' or ''positive atheism'', is the positive assertion that no deities exist. While the terms ''weak'' and ''strong'' are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms ''negative atheism'' and ''positive atheism'' were more common, most notbaly used by [[Antony Flew]] in 1972, although [[Jacques Maritain]] (1953, Chapter 8, p.104) used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949. Although explicit atheists (see below) who consciously reject theism may subscribe to either ''weak'' or ''strong'' atheism, weak atheism also includes implicit atheists, that is, nontheists who have not consciously rejected theism, but lack theistic belief, arguably including persons newborns.
+
Some writers distinguish between weak and strong atheism. “Weak atheism,sometimes called “soft atheism,” “negative atheism” or “neutral atheism,is the absence of belief in the existence of [[deity|deities]] without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. In this sense, weak atheism may be considered a form of [[agnosticism]]. These atheists may have no opinion regarding the existence of deities, either because of a lack of interest in the matter (a viewpoint referred to as [[apatheism]]), or a belief that the arguments and evidence provided by both theists and strong atheists are equally unpersuasive. Specifically, they argue that theism and strong atheism are equally untenable, on the grounds that asserting or denying the existence of deities requires a faith-claim.
 
 
Theists claim that a single deity or group of deities exists. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary; instead, they only refrain from assenting to theistic claims. In this sense, weak atheism may be considered a form of [[agnosticism]]. Some weak atheists are without any opinion regarding the existence of deities, either because of a lack of thought on the matter, a lack of interest in the matter (a viewpoint referred to as [[apatheism]]), or a belief that the arguments and evidence provided by both theists and strong atheists are equally unpersuasive. Others may doubt or dispute claims for the existence of deities, while not actively asserting that deities do not exist, a position commonly classified as explicit weak atheism. Similarly, some weak atheists feel that theism and strong atheism are equally untenable, on the grounds that faith is required both to assert and to deny the existence of deities. As such, they conclude that both theism and strong atheism have inherited the burden of proof as to whether or not a god does or doesn't exist, respectively. Some also base their belief on the notion that it is impossible to [[Negative proof|prove a negative]], in this case, the fact that god does ''not'' exist.  
 
  
While a weak atheist might consider the nonexistence of deities likely on the basis that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a deity's existence, a strong atheist has the additional view that positive statements of nonexistence are merited when evidence or arguments indicate that a deity's nonexistence is certain or probable. Strong atheism may be based on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible (positive [[ignosticism]]), or that one or more attributes of a deity are incompatible with what we observe in the world.  Examples of this may be found in quantum physics, where the existence of mutually exclusive data negates the possibility of omniscience, usually a core attribute of monotheistic conceptions of deity.
+
On the other hand, “strong atheism,” also known as “hard atheism” or “positive atheism,” is the positive assertion that no deities exist. Many strong atheists have the additional view that positive statements of nonexistence are merited when evidence or arguments indicate that a deity's nonexistence is certain or probable. Strong atheism may be based on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible (positive [[ignosticism]]), or that one or more attributes of a deity are incompatible with worldly realities.
  
 
===Implicit and explicit atheism===
 
===Implicit and explicit atheism===
  
The terms implicit and explicit atheism were coined by George H. Smith in 1979 for purposes of understanding atheism more narrowly. This conceptualization of atheism does not consider mere absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism, instead placing emphasis on conscious rejection of theism. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as the lack of theistic belief without conscious rejection of it. This rejection, according to Smith, is not actually regarded as atheistic at all, and the umbrella term [[nontheism]] is typically used in its place. [[Image:Atheismimplicitexplicit2.PNG|thumb|230px|A chart showing the relationship between the weak/strong (positive/negative) and implicit/explicit dichotomies. Strong atheism is always explicit, and implicit atheism is always weak.]] Explicit atheism, meanwhile, is defined by a conscious rejection of theistic belief, and is sometimes called ''antitheism'' (see below). For Smith, explicit atheism is subdivided further according to whether or not the rejection of theism is based upon rational grounds. The term ''critical atheism'' is used to label the view that belief in god is irrational, and is itself subdivided into a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being"; b) the view usually expressed by the statement, "god does not exist" or "the existence of god is impossible"; and c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" (p.17).
+
The terms implicit and explicit atheism were coined by George H. Smith in 1979 for purposes of understanding atheism more narrowly. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as the lack of theistic belief without conscious rejection of it. Explicit atheism, meanwhile, is defined by a conscious rejection of theistic belief and is sometimes called "''antitheism''."
  
As it happens, Smith's definition of explicit atheism is also the most common among laypeople. For laypersons, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the belief that there is no god. Thus, most laypeople would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (implicit atheism) as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as [[skepticism]], [[agnosticism]], or "non-atheistic nontheism" to describe this position. Such usage is not exclusive to laypeople, however, as many atheist philosophers, including Theodore Drange, use the narrow definition.
+
As it happens, Smith's definition of explicit atheism is also the most common among laypeople. For laypersons, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the belief that there is no god. Thus, most laypeople would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (implicit atheism) as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as [[skepticism]] or [[agnosticism]]. Such usage is not exclusive to laypeople, however, as many atheist philosophers, including Theodore Drange, use the narrow definition.
  
The aforementioned terms ''weak atheism'' and ''strong atheism'' (or ''negative atheism'' and ''positive atheism'') are often used as synonyms of Smith's less-well-known ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' categories. However, the original and technical meanings of implicit and explicit atheism are quite different and distinct from weak and strong atheism, having to do with conscious rejection and unconscious rejection of theism rather than with positive belief and negative belief.
+
===Antitheism===
 +
''Antitheism'' typically refers to a direct opposition to [[theism]]. In this sense, it is a form of critical strong atheism. While in other senses atheism merely denies the existence of deities, antitheists may go so far as to believe that theism is actually harmful for human beings. As well, they may simply be atheists who have little tolerance for theistic views, which they perceive to be [[irrationality|irrational]]/dangerous. However, ''antitheism'' is also sometimes used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to [[God]] or [[divine]] things, rather than an opposition to the belief in God. Using the latter definition, it is possible to be an antitheist without being an atheist or nontheist.
  
===Ignosticism===
+
===Atheism in philosophical naturalism===
Ignosticism is a variation of explicit atheism which asserts that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. It is a popular view among many [[logical positivism|logical positivists]] such as [[Rudolph Carnap]] and [[A. J. Ayer]], who claim that talk of gods is literally nonsensical. Theological statements such as those affirming god's existence cannot have any truth value, since they lack [[falsifiability]]. This refers to the fact that claims of transendence and metaphysic properties cannot be tested by empirical means and potentially rejected as null hypotheses. This is because the terminology being used by theologians has not been properly or consistently defined, dealing with word use and technicalities rather than observable physical realities. In ''Language, Truth and Logic'', Ayer stated that theism, atheism and agnosticism were equally meaningless terms, insofar as they treat the question of the existence of God as a real question. However, there are varieties of atheism and agnosticism which do not necessarily agree that the question is meaningless, especially those using the "lack of theism" definition of atheism. Despite Ayer's criticism of atheism as a concept (perhaps using the definition typically associated with [[strong atheism]]), ignosticism is still considered as a form of atheism in most religious classifications.
+
Despite the fact that many, if not most, atheists have preferred to claim that atheism is a lack of a belief rather than a belief in its own right, some atheist writers identify atheism with the [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic world view]] and defend it on that basis. The case for naturalism is used as a positive argument for atheism. For example, James Thrower proposes a "naturalistic" interpretation of events in the world, which takes nature as the paramount explanatory cause. As this worldview does not assert belief in any god beyond nature, it is therefore atheistic. Similarly, [[Julian Baggini]] argues that atheism must be understood not as a denial of religion, but instead as an affirmation of and commitment to the one world of nature. For Baggini, all unnatural (and supernatural) causes must be dismissed: "God is just one of the things that atheists don't believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name.<ref>Julian Baggini, ''Atheism: A Very Short Introduction'' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, ISBN 0192804243), 17.</ref> This variation of atheism, then, denies not only god(s) but also the existence of souls and other supernatural entities.
  
===Gnostic and agnostic atheism===
+
== Atheism and philosophy ==
Agnostic atheism is a fusion of atheism or [[nontheism]] with [[agnosticism]], the [[epistemology|epistemological]] position that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown (weak agnosticism) or unknowable (strong agnosticism). Agnostic atheism's definition varies, just as the definitions of agnosticism and atheism do. It may be a combination of lack of theism with [[strong agnosticism]], the view that it is impossible to know whether deities exist to any reliable degree. It may also be a combination of lack of theism with [[weak agnosticism]], the view that there is not currently enough information to decide whether or not a deity exists, but that such information may be available in the future. [[Apatheism]] often overlaps with agnostic atheism, as is the case with apathetic agnosticism, a fusion of apatheism with strong agnostic atheism. Unlike ignostics, apathetic agnostics do not deny the question of God's existence. However, they are apathetic in regards to the answer of this question, claiming that God's existence or non-existence will have little effect on the human condition. Agnostic atheism is typically contrasted with [[agnostic theism]], the belief that deities exist even though it is impossible to even know for sure.
+
Atheism has been historically used in two senses.
  
Agnostic atheism is also placed in contrast with gnostic atheism, the belief that there is enough information to determine that deities do not exist. Gnostic atheism used less frequently, however, because anyone who is not labeled as agnostic is typically assumed to be gnostic by default. Gnostic atheism also has a variety meanings. When nontheism is combined with strong gnosticism, it constitutes the belief that it is rational to be absolutely certain that deities do not, and perhaps cannot, exist. When nontheism is coupled with weak gnosticism, it denotes the belief that there is enough information to be reasonably sure that deities do not exist, but not absolutely certain. In addition, ''Gnostic atheism'' is sometimes used as a synonym of [[strong atheism]], and thus ''agnostic atheism'' is occasionally a synonym for [[weak atheism]]. This is similar to the more common confusion of the terms ''implicit atheism'' and ''explicit atheism'' with strong and weak atheism. It bears mentioning here that the term gnostic atheism should also not be confused with [[Gnosticism]].
+
1. Atheism has been a label given to a broad range of perspectives including pantheism and agnosticism, primarily by [[monotheism|monotheists]] or religious authorities. These perspectives did not necessarily deny [[mysticism|mystical]] or spiritual aspects of the world or of certain deities. The term “atheism” in this sense was coined in the sixteenth century to criticize positions that did not comply with the authorized views of the Christian church. The term is now extended to a wide variety of views whose contexts are quite different.  
  
===Atheism in philosophical naturalism===
+
For example, [[Baruch Spinoza]] was denounced and labeled as an “atheist” by both [[Judaism|Jewish]] and [[Christianity|Christian]] authorities for over a century and [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte]] was expelled from [[university]] for the charge of “atheism.” Even [[Immanuel Kant]], a Christian thinker, was accused as being “atheistic.
Despite the fact that many, if not most, atheists have preferred to claim that atheism is a lack of a belief rather than a belief in its own right, some atheist writers identify atheism with the [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic world view]] and defend it on that basis. The case for naturalism is used as a positive argument for atheism. According to Thrower, negative atheism is understood primarily as a function of the current variation of theism which it rejects. This, in Thrower's eyes, renders such atheism as relative. As an alternative, he proposes a way of looking at and interpreting events in the world which he refers to as "naturalistic", in that it concerns nature as paramount. However, this worldview does not assert belief in any god beyond nature, and therefore is atheistic. Similarly, [[Julian Baggini]] argues that atheism must be understood not as a denial of religion, but instead as an affirmation of and commitment to the one world of nature. For Baggini, therefore, the abundant evidence for the reality of the natural world and the lack thereof for any other phenomena confirms atheism. This other kind of phenomena for which there is no evidence is not limited to god by any means, however, as Baggini writes: "God is just one of the things that atheists don't believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name. (p.17). This variation of atheism, then, denies not only god but also the existence of souls and other supernatural entities.
 
  
===Antitheism===
+
2. [[Materialism]]. This position denies the reality or existence of any deity, being transcendent or immanent. It should be sharply distinguished from [[pantheism]], [[agnosticism]], and religious naturalism. Materialist atheism has an explicit ontological commitment for the denial of the reality of spiritual or divine being in any form.  
''Antitheism'' typically refers to a direct opposition to [[theism]]. In this sense, it is a form of critical [[strong atheism]]. While in other senses atheism merely denies the existence of deities, antitheists may go so far as to believe that theism is actually harmful for human beings. As well, they may simply be atheists who have little tolerance for theistic views which they perceive to be [[irrationality|irrational]]. Strong atheists who are not antitheists may believe positively that deities do not exist, while not believing that theism is directly harmful or requiring opposition. Antitheism may sometimes overlap with [[ignosticism]], the view that theism is inherently meaningless, and may directly contradict [[apatheism]], the view that theism is irrelevant rather than dangerous. However, ''antitheism'' is also sometimes used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to [[God]] or [[divine]] things, rather than an opposition to the belief in God. Using the latter definition, it may be possible &mdash; or perhaps even necessary &mdash; to be an antitheist without being an atheist or nontheist.
 
  
===Pejorative Definitions===
+
Those who held this position include eighteenth-century French materialists such as [[Julien Offray de La Mettrie]], [[Baron d’Holbach]], and [[Denis Diderot]] and their ideological successors in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries such as [[Ludwig Feuerbach]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Josef Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]].  
The first attempts to define or develop a typology annotating the varieties of atheism occurred in religious [[apologetics]]. These attempts were expressed in terms and in contexts that reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers of the time. Thus, the majority of such classifications depicted atheism as a licentious belief system. Regardless, a diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since [[Plato]], and common distinctions have been established between ''practical atheism'' and ''contemplative'' or ''speculative atheism''.
 
  
Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance and infidelity. Atheists in the practical sense were those who behaved as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist. [[Karen Armstrong]] notes that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word atheist had what were perhaps its most polemical connotations. For instance, John Wingfield, an author from that period, claimed that the wicked, proud, and inscrutable were all atheists at heart, presumably denying good through their imperious actions. Similarly, English dramatist [[Thomas Nashe]] (1567-1601) put forward the idea that ambitious, greedy, and gluttonous individuals, as well as such societal dregs as prostitutes, were all essentially deniers of god. According to Armstrong, the term 'atheist' was a severe insult, and by no means would it be a title one bestowed upon themselves. These negative connotations have persisted and still exist in contemporary times. According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne, for instance, "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law" (1961 p. 10).  
+
During the [[Age of Enlightenment]], atheism became the philosophical position of a growing minority, headed by the openly atheistic works of [[Baron d'Holbach|d'Holbach]]. In the nineteenth century, atheism became a powerful political tool through the writings of Feuerbach, who claimed God was a fictional projection fabricated by man. This idea greatly influenced Marx, the founder of [[communism]], who believed that laborers turn to religion in order to dull the pain caused by the reality of social situations. Other atheists of the period included [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] and [[Sigmund Freud]]. The overall popularity of atheism in the nineteenth century led Nietzsche to coin the aphorism "God is dead." By the twentieth century, along with the spread of [[rationalism]] and [[secular humanism]], atheism had become more widespread, particularly among scientists.  
  
On the other hand, the existence of serious speculative atheism, which involves deep philosophical contemplation as to whether or not god actually exists, was often denied by theists throughout history. That anyone might ''reason'' their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, or conceptualized as a hateful fight against God. This is why Borne finds it necessary to say, "to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only 'practical atheists' who through pride or idleness disregard the divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question." (p. 18)  When denial of the existence of "speculative" atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless repressed and criticized by narrowing definitions, applying charges of dogmatism, and otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of euphemistic alternative terms like [[secularism|secularist]], [[empiricism|empiricist]], [[agnosticism|agnostic]], or [[Brights movement|bright]] in recent history is due to the fact that ''atheism'' still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism. For example, the term ''godless'' is still used as an abusive epithet. Thinkers such as Gaskin have abandoned the term ''atheism'' in favor of ''unbelief'', citing the fact that both the derogatory associations of the term and its vagueness in the public eye have rendered atheism an undesireable label. Despite these considerations, for others ''atheist'' has always been the preferred title.
+
Materialistic atheism challenges any position, policy, institution, and movement that is based upon the assumption of the existence of a deity and spiritual dimension. The most radical and socially affective form of materialistic atheism in contemporary society is [[Marxism]] and its extensions. Furthermore, those materialistic atheists who actively seek to undermine existing religions are sometimes labeled as militant atheists. During the period of [[communism|communist]] ascendancy, militant atheism enjoyed the full apparatus of the state, making it possible to attack religion and believers by every means imaginable with impunity. This included political, social, and military attacks on believers, and suppression of religion.
  
==Religion and atheism==
+
==Atheism and World Religions==
  
 
===Ancient Greek and Roman===
 
===Ancient Greek and Roman===
 
[[image:socrates.png|thumb|150px|right|Socrates]]
 
[[image:socrates.png|thumb|150px|right|Socrates]]
 +
The oldest known variation of Western-style, philosophical atheism is attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher [[Epicurus]] around 300 B.C.E. The goal of the [[Epicureanism|Epicureans]] was mainly to alleviate fear of divine wrath by portraying it as irrational. One of the most eloquent expressions of Epicurean thought is found in [[Lucretius]]' ''On the Nature of Things'' (first century B.C.E.). He denied the existence of an [[afterlife]] and thought that if gods existed they were uninterested in human existence. For these reasons, they may be better described as [[materialism|materialists]] than atheists. Epicureans were not persecuted, but their teachings were controversial, and were harshly attacked by the mainstream schools of [[Stoicism]] and [[Neoplatonism]].
  
The oldest known variation of atheism as we now understand it is attributed to the ancient Greek[[Epicurus]] around [[300 B.C.E.]]. The aim of the [[Epicurean]]s was mainly to attain peace of mind by portraying human fear of divine wrath as inherently irrational. One of the most eloquent expressions of Epicurean thought is [[Lucretius]]' ''[[On the Nature of Things]]'' ([[1st century B.C.E.]]), where the author grandly proclaims the importance of each human's personal responsibility in a universe independent of god's aid. Lucretius was not an atheist as he did believe in the existence of gods, and Epicurus was ambiguous on this topic as well. However, both thought for certain that if gods existed they were uninterested in human existence, and also denied the existence of an afterlife. For these reasons, they may be better described as [[materialists]] than atheists proper. Epicureans were not persecuted, but their teachings were controversial, and were harshly attacked by the mainstream schools of [[Stoicism]] and [[Neoplatonism]]. For these reasons, the movement remained marginal, and gradually died out at the end of the [[Roman Empire]].
+
Many other Greek philosophers critiqued the then-prevalent [[henotheism|henotheistic]] beliefs. [[Xenophanes]], for instance, claimed that [[anthropomorphism|anthropomorphic]] and often immoral portrayals of the many gods were merely projections of humanity upon the divine. Ionic naturalists provided (pre-scientific) explanations for phenomena that had been previously been attributed to the gods. [[Democritus]] put forth the thesis that all phenomena in the world were merely transformations of eternal atoms, rather than anthropomorphic divinities. The [[Sophists]] criticized the various gods as products of human society and imagination. Critias, a famed dramatist and contemporary of [[Socrates]], had one of his characters put forth the view that gods existed merely to bolster and reify societal codes of morality. Atheist thought culminated in the Greek tradition with [[Theodoret of Cyrrhus]], who was the first to explicitly deny all forms of theism and the existence of any type of god.  
  
Despite the prevalence of [[henotheism]] featuring numerous gods in ancient Greece, criticisms were lodged against such belief by various philosophers. [[Xenophanes]], for instance, claimed that anthropomorphic and often immoral portrayals of the many gods were merely projections of humanity upon the divine. As an alternative, Xenophanes suggested the notion of one, unchangable god to replace these prevailing conceptions. This set in motion a chain of thought which lead to the eventual denial of the gods. Ionic naturalists, for instance, provided naturalistic explanations for phenomena which had been previously explained by the gods. [[Democritus]] put forth the thesis that all phenomena in the world were merely transformations of eternal atoms, rather than anthropomorphic conceptions of divinity. The [[Sophists]] criticized the various gods as products of human society and imagination to the extent that [[Protagoras]], who actually espoused an agnostic variation of doubt, was outlawed in Athens. Critias, a famed dramatist and contemporary of Socrates, had one of his characters put forth the view that gods were put in place merely to bolster and reify societal codes of morality. Atheist thought came to a head in the Greek tradition with Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who was the first to explicitly deny all forms of theism and the existence of any type of god.  
+
Politically speaking, these developments were problematic, as theism was the fundamental belief that supported the divine right of the State in both Greece and Rome. As such, any person who did not believe in the deities supported by the State was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime. For political reasons, Socrates in [[Athens]] (399 B.C.E.) was accused of being ''atheos'' (or "refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state"). Early Christians in [[Rome]] were also considered subversive to the state religion and were thereby prosecuted as atheists. As such, it can be seen that charges of atheism (referring to the subversion of religion) were often used as a political mechanism by which to eliminate dissent.
  
Politically speaking, theism was the fundamental belief in that supported the divine right of the State, in both Greece and Rome. Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity supported by the State was fair game to accusations of atheism, a [[Capital punishment|capital crime]]. For political reasons, [[Socrates]] in [[Athens]] ([[399 B.C.E.]]) was accused of being ''atheos'' (or "refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state"). Despite the charges, he claimed inspiration from a divine voice and on his deathbed he asked that a [[rooster]] be sacrificed to the god [[Asclepius]]. Christians in [[Rome]] were also considered subversive to the state religion and thereby prosecuted as atheists. Christians rejected the Roman gods, and henotheists rejected the exclusivity of Christian [[monotheism]]. Thus, charges of atheism (referring to the subversion of religion) were often used as a political mechanism by which to eliminate religious diversity. During the late [[Roman Empire]], atheism was a common legal prosecution against Christians by [[Henotheism|henotheists]], leading to the deaths of many Christians for their beliefs.
+
===Judaism===
 +
Belief in god is an indispensable requirement of the Jewish [[faith]]. This is evidenced by [[Judaism]]'s paramount prayer, the ''[[Shema]] Israel'', which asserts the [[monotheism|monotheistic]] nature of god. Nonetheless, some strains of atheism have still originated from within the Judaic faith. For example, Richard Rubinstein, a [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]] [[rabbi]] who spent three years of his youth imprisoned at [[Auschwitz]], put forward the claim that God died at that very [[concentration camp]]. God's failure to save the Jews, according to Rubinstein, marked a severance in the [[covenant]] between God and the Jewish people. Hence, the Jews were to face the universe alone as atheists; however, Rubenstein implored the Jewish people to retain their identity by continuing to follow moral imperatives laid out by God before his demise. Due to the extremely pessimistic tone of this notion, and the theological difficulties that arise with the claim that God can somehow cease to exist, Rubinstein's atheism was largely rejected.
  
===Judaism===
+
In many modern movements in Judaism, rabbis have generally considered the behavior of a Jew to be the determining factor in whether or not one is considered an adherent of Judaism. Within these movements it is sometimes acknowledged that it is possible for a Jew to strictly practice Judaism as a faith, while at the same time being an agnostic or atheist. Some Jewish atheists reject Judaism altogether, but wish to continue identifying themselves with the Jewish people and culture. Jewish atheists who practice [[Humanistic Judaism]] embrace Jewish culture and history as the sources of their Jewish identity, rather than belief in a supernatural god.  
Belief in god is an indispensible requirement within the [[Jewish principles of faith]], which is evident within [[Judaism]]'s paramount prayer, the [[Shema]] which fervently asserts the monotheistic nature of god. However, some strains of atheism have nonetheless originated out of the Judaic faith. One stream of atheism emerged in the aftermath of the [[Holocaust]]. Richard Rubinstein, a [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]] rabbi who spent three years of his youth imprisoned at Auschwitz, put forward the claim that God Himself died at that very concentration camp. God's failure to save the Jews, according to Rubinstein, marked a severance in the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Hence, the Jews were to face the universe alone as atheists; however, Rubenstein implored the Jewish people to retain their identity by continuing to follow moral imperatives laid out by God before his demise. Due to the extremely pessimistic tone of this notion, and the theological difficulties that arise with the claim that God can somehow cease to exist, Rubinstein's atheism was largely rejected, though he still maintains the belief.
 
  
In many modern movements in Judaism, rabbis have generally considered the behavior of a Jew to be the determining factor in whether or not one is considered an adherent of Judaism. Within these movements it is sometimes acknowledged that it is possible for a Jew to strictly practice Judaism as a faith, while at the same time being an agnostic or atheist. Some Jewish atheists reject Judaism altogther, but wish to continue identifying themselves with the Jewish people and culture. Jewish atheists who practice [[Humanistic Judaism]] embrace Jewish culture and history as the sources of their Jewish identity, rather than belief in a supernatural god. [[Reconstructionist Judaism|Reconstructionism]] is not dogmatic in many of its articles of faith, including belief in a deity, which is not required. As such, many Reconstructionist Jews adhere to [[deism]], or else reject theism altogether and do not believe in any God. Sentiments toward atheist Jews are sometimes even quite positive. Rabbi [[Abraham Isaac Kook]], first Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in pre-state Israel, held that atheists do not actually deny God, but rather help toward a fuller realization of god. That is, atheist deny one of humanity's many images of God. Since any man-made image of God can be considered an idol, Kook held that, in practice, one could consider atheists as helping true religion eschew false images of God, in the end serving the purpose of true monotheism. It is also worth noting that certain popular [[Reform Judaism|Reform]] prayer books, such as ''Gates of Prayer'', offer numerous services without mention of God.
+
Likewise, [[Reconstructionist Judaism|Jewish Reconstructionism]] is not dogmatic in many of its articles of [[faith]], including belief in a deity, which is not required. As such, many Reconstructionist Jews adhere to [[deism]], or else reject theism altogether and do not believe in any God. Sentiments toward atheist Jews are sometimes even quite positive. Rabbi [[Abraham Isaac Kook]], first chief rabbi of the Jewish community in pre-state [[Israel]], held that atheists do not actually deny God, but rather help toward a fuller realization of god. That is, atheists deny one of humanity's many images of God. Since any man-made image of God can be considered an idol, Kook held that, in practice, one could consider atheists as helping true religion eschew false images of God, in the end serving the purpose of true monotheism.
  
 
===Christianity===
 
===Christianity===
By necessity, Christianity, as a [[theist]]ic and [[Proselytism|proselytizing]] religion, views atheism as sinful. According to [[Psalm 14:1]], "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Additionally, according to John 3:18-19, "He that believeth in him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." These passages suggests that those who reject the divinity of Jesus (and presumably its attendant theism) do so because of a proclivity to do evil, rather than evil being a consequence of their disbelief.
+
Christianity, as a [[theism|theistic]] and [[Proselytism|proselytizing]] religion, views atheism as sinful. According to Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Additionally, according to John 3:18-19, "He that believeth in him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." These passages suggest that those who reject the divinity of Jesus do so because of a proclivity to do evil, rather than evil being a consequence of their disbelief.
 
 
Regardless of such negative sentiments, atheism has still been found occassionally throughout the history of Christianity. [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] literature, which predates some of the gospel records, commonly put forward the idea that the physical world is an fallacious, deceptive environment. Instead of considering the world a triumph of a benevolent creator, gnostic writers attributed its existence to some kind of divine fault. The creator, therefore, should by no means receive worship from humanity; rather, the object of religiosity should be an escape from the physical world. Ultimate reality, in contrast to the creator, should not be thought of as God, but rather as an unknowable, ineffable One, which the gnostic writers often described as existing in non-being. While gnosticism was rejected by orthodox Christianity, it still marks one branch of the faith which was somewhat atheistic.
 
 
 
Another famous but idiosyncratic atheistic belief in the Christian tradition is that of [[Thomas Altizer]]. His book ''The Gospel of Christian Atheism'' (1967) proclaims the highly unusual view that God has literally died, or self-annihilated. According to Altizer, this is nevertheless "a Christian confession of faith" (p. 102). Making clear the difference between his position and that of both [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche's]] notion of the death of God and the stance of theological non-realists, Altizer says: "To confess the death of God is to speak of an actual and real event, not perhaps an event occurring in a single moment of time or history, but notwithstanding this reservation an event that has actually happened both in a cosmic and in a historical sense."(p.103). However, many would dispute whether this is an atheist position at all, as belief in a dead God implies that God once existed in "living" form. Atheism typically entails a lack of belief that ''any'' gods ''ever'' existed, as opposed to not existing currently.
 
 
 
It should be noted that although Christianity as a ''faith'' has to be construed as irreconcilable with atheism, this is not the case regarding church institutions which currently are nominally Christian. Indeed the great [[Positivism|positivist]] luminaries in all earnestness encompassed a Catholic Church which would retain all its ceremonies and ecclesiastical structures, whilst transforming into a purely atheistic church, much in the same way that Christianity has co-opted the organizational traditions of the native faiths it has encountered around the world, and through the ages. similarly, [[Liberal Christianity|Liberal Christian]] atheists follow the teaching of [[Jesus]], but may not believe in the literal existence of God. In this case, however, many would dispute whether the atheists in question are truly [[Christianity|Christians]], though they certainly are by some of the looser definitions of the word.
 
  
 
===Islam===
 
===Islam===
In [[Islam]], atheists are categorized as [[kafir]] (كافر). This term translates roughly to "denier" or "concealer" and is also used to describe polytheists. In Islam, denial of god in such a way is one of the paramount transgressions, and as such, the noun ''kafir'' carries connotations of blasphemy and utter disconnection from the Islamic community. In Arabic, "atheism" is generally translated ''ilhad'' (إلحاد), which also means "heresy". The [[Quran]] is silent on the punishment for [[apostasy]], though not on the subject itself. The Quran speaks repeatedly of people going back to unbelief after believing, but does not say that they should be killed or punished. Nonetheless, atheists have been subjected to such punishments throughout history in Islamic countries. Hence, atheists in such places frequently conceal their non-belief. The surveys mentioned above that indicate percentage of Muslim believers at or approaching 100% in certain Islamic countries should be interpreted in light of this fact.
+
In [[Islam]], atheists are categorized as ''[[kafir]]'' (كافر). This term translates roughly to "denier" or "concealer" and is also used to describe [[polytheism|polytheists]]. In Islam, denial of god in such a way is one of the paramount transgressions, and as such, the noun ''kafir'' carries connotations of [[blasphemy]] and utter disconnection from the Islamic community. In Arabic, "atheism" is generally translated ''ilhad'' (إلحاد), which also means "heresy." The [[Qur'an]] is silent on the punishment for [[apostasy]], though not on the subject itself. The Qur'an speaks repeatedly of people going back to unbelief after believing, but does not say that they should be killed or punished. Nonetheless, atheists have been subjected to such punishments throughout history in Islamic countries. Hence, atheists in such places frequently conceal their non-belief.
  
 
===Hinduism===
 
===Hinduism===
  
Several explicitly atheist schools emerged out of the writings of the Vedas, the primary texts in Indian philosophy which form the core teachings of [[Hinduism]]. Of the six orthodox (astika) schools, [[Samkhya]] and [[Mimamsa]] can be characterized as atheistic. Unlike other astika schools, Samkhya lacks the notion of a 'higher being' that is the ground of all existence. Instead, Samkhya proposes a thoroughly dualistic understanding of the Cosmos, in which two coexisting realities form the basis of reality: [[Purusha]], the spiritual and [[Prakriti]], the physical. The aim of life is the attainment of liberating Self-knowledge of the Purusha and becomes pure spirit. Here, no God (better stated ''theos'') is present, yet Ultimate Reality in the form of the Purusha does exist. Therefore, Samkhya can be said to be a variety of Hinduism which falls into the classification of theistic atheism.  
+
Several explicitly atheist schools emerged out of the writings of the [[Vedas]], the texts that contain the core teachings of [[Hinduism]]. Of the six orthodox (''astika'') schools, [[Samkhya]] and [[Mimamsa]], can be characterized as atheistic. Unlike other ''astika'' schools, Samkhya lacks the notion of a “higher being” that is the ground of all existence. Instead, Samkhya proposes a thoroughly dualistic understanding of the cosmos, in which two coexisting realities form the basis of reality: [[Purusha]], the spiritual and [[Prakriti]], the physical. The aim of life is the attainment of liberating self-knowledge through the separation of Purusha (spirit) from Prakriti (matter). Here, no God is present, yet Ultimate Reality in the form of the Purusha does exist. Therefore, Samkhya can be said to be a variety of Hinduism which falls into the classification of theistic atheism.  
  
The Mimamsa schools focused their primary enquiry more upon the nature of [[dharma]] than the properties of a supreme deity. In doing so, they rejected theistic conceptions of the cosmos more outwardly than Samkhya. These rejections were developed in counterpoint to arguments for theism prevalent at that time. Between the sixth and tenth centuries C.E., the Nyaya school based in logic and the Vaisesika school based in atomism merged in order to develop said arguments. The Purva Mimamsa school attacked these lines of reasoning vehemently, asserting no such god existed. Uttara Mimamsa, a sister school, was less forceful in its rejection of theism, and admitted that arguments for the existence of god are only important on the level of everyday understanding. On the level of transcendent religious knowledge, adherents of Uttara Mimamsa viewed the concept of God to be ultimately illusory.
+
The Mimamsa schools focused their primary inquiry more upon the nature of [[dharma]] than the properties of a supreme deity. In doing so, they rejected theistic conceptions of the cosmos more outwardly than did the Samkhya. These rejections were developed in response to the theistic arguments being developed by the [[Nyaya]] and [[Vaisesika]] schools. The Purva Mimamsa school attacked their lines of reasoning vehemently, asserting no such god existed. Though Uttara Mimamsa (a sister school) was less forceful in its rejection of personal theism, it still viewed the concept of God as being ultimately illusory.
   
+
As well, the three heterodox schools in Indian philosophy, Buddhism, Jainism and Carvaka, defined as such because of their rejection of the Vedas, all adopted some form of atheism. While Buddhism and Jainism developed into their own unique religious traditions, Carvaka (also ''Charvaka'') persisted in India as late as the sixteenth century but no further. Further, Charvaka left no writings and is understood principally from fragments cited by its opponents. Carvaka was not a religious tradition but rather an exclusively [[materialist]] and atheist school of thought in [[India]], rejecting all sources of knowledge other than the senses. For the Charvakan, only the sensible world exists, and therefore the only purpose of life is to live long and enjoy physical pleasures. There is no afterlife, no soul, and no cosmic suffering other than the hardships of the present life; closely related to these affirmations of physical and nothing else was a pervasive disbelief in God.
+
As well, Carvaka (also ''Charvaka'') was an explicitly atheist school of Indian philosophy. It was not a religious tradition but rather a [[materialism|materialist]] school of thought, which rejected all sources of knowledge other than the senses. For the Charvakan, only the physical world exists, and therefore the only purpose of life is to live long and enjoy physical pleasures. There is no [[afterlife]], no soul, and no God to them.
  
 
===Jainism===
 
===Jainism===
  
The other heterodox school in Indian thought which can be described as explicitly atheistic is that of [[Jainism]]. However, unlike the Carvakas, Jains acknowledge a spiritual realm beyond the physical, believing that the soul (jiva) is caught in an endless cycle of rebirth, and limited from its potential for eternal bliss by the material world. Jains follow a rigourous path of asceticism in order to release the soul from this cycle. The Jainist cosmos is eternal, having no beginning and no end, and therefore, having no creator, as well. Therefore, the notion of god is not necessary to explain Jain cosmology. Jains provide a plethora of other arguments as to why there is no need for a conception of god. For instance, they claim that if the world is an effect of a First Cause (god) and therefore subject to change, then the god who theists claim created it is supposedly prone to a state of flux, as well. Also, Jains question the motive of this cosmic being for creation of the world. If this creation was performed for the purposes of fulfilling some need within god, then it follows that god created due to lack of something, mitigating the doctrine of godly perfection. Furthermore, Jains claim that a god who bestows happiness upon people simply at his whim seems to be guilty of playing favourites. Hence, Jains deny all theistic sentiment. While Jains have to some extent venerated their founder [[Mahavira]] throughout history and still do at present, their gratitude toward their founder can hardly be considered worship of a god.
+
Another heterodox school of Indian thought that is explicitly atheistic is [[Jainism]]. However, unlike the Carvakas, Jains acknowledge a spiritual realm beyond the physical, believing that the soul ''(jiva)'' is caught in an endless cycle of rebirth, and limited from its potential for eternal bliss by the material world. Jains follow a rigorous path of [[asceticism]] in order to release the soul from this cycle. The Jain cosmos is eternal, having no beginning and no end, which they believe obviates the necessity of having a creator. Additionally, Jain teachings provide a plethora of other arguments as to why there is no need for the conception of a god. These include many parallels with arguments for atheism from other traditions, including questions of divine mutability, perfection and accountability (theodicy). Hence, Jain philosophy denies all theistic sentiment.  
 +
 
 +
While Jains have to some extent venerated [[Mahavira]] (the last [[prophet]] ([[Tirthankara]]) who achieved ''[[kevala]]''—enlightenment or absolute knowledge—and systematized the Jain doctrine) throughout history (and still do at present), their gratitude toward him can hardly be considered the [[worship]] of a god.
  
 
===Buddhism===
 
===Buddhism===
  
While [[Buddhism]] is not as outwardly atheistic as the other heterodox schools in Indian philosophy, early Buddhist texts suggest that theistic maxims are philosophically lacking. In the [[Pali Canon]], earliest of the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha criticizes the claim made by the brahmans that they possess a means for coming to union with a supreme divinity, the existence of which cannot be proven. Buddhists deny the reality of the material world, claiming all to be a function of impermanent and consistently changing ''dharmas''. Under such a monistic world-view marked by change, the concept of a changeless deity is highly incoherent, and was never developed in the Buddhist tradition. [[Vasubandhu]] and [[Yasomitra]], later Buddhist writers, note that if god is the singular cause of all things in existence, then all things should logically have been created at once. Since the world is constantly spawning new forms, however, one cause could never be considered adequate for the totality of existence. Further, since all things are created out of a succession of dharmas in a process called ''pratitya-samutpada'', without exception everything is dependent on something else in order to come into existence. This precludes the possibility of an original cause without cause which was popular in Aristotelian conceptions of God. Like the Jains, Buddhists also question a creator god's motivation for rendering the world, noting that god must enjoy human suffering, having created a world replete with it.  
+
While some schools of [[Buddhism]]&mdash;such as [[Theravada]]&mdash;are called atheistic, this label is misleading because Buddhism does believe in God but does not see them as eternal or creative forces in the origin of the universe. It also sees such gods as stuck in the wheel of ''[[samsara]]'' (rebirth and suffering). In the [[Pali Canon]], earliest of the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha criticizes the concept of a changeless deity as highly incoherent. [[Vasubandhu]] and [[Yasomitra]], later Buddhist writers, note that if god is the singular cause of all things in existence, then all things should logically have been created at once. Since the world is constantly spawning new forms, however, one cause could never be considered adequate for the totality of existence. Further, since all things are created out of a succession of [[dharma]]s in a process called ''pratitya-samutpada'', without exception everything is dependent on something else in order to come into existence. This precludes the possibility of an original cause without cause, as was popular in Aristotelian conceptions of God. Like the Jains, Buddhists also question a creator god's motivation for rendering the world, noting that god must enjoy human suffering, having created a world replete with it.  
  
However, all canonical Buddhist texts that mention the subject of god accept the ''existence'' (as distinct from the ''authority'') of a great number of spiritual beings, including the Vedic deities. From the point of view of Western theism, certain concepts of the [[Buddha]] found in the [[Mahayana]] school of Buddhism, e.g. of [[Amitabha]] or the Adibuddha may seem to share characteristics with Western concepts of God, despite the fact that Shakyamuni [[Buddha]] himself denied that he was a god or divine. Furthermore, both the Nikaya/Mahayana schools of Buddhism provide deep spiritual regard to bodhissatvas, highly enlightened beings who are dedicated to assisting all sentient beings in achieving Buddhahood. In some ways, this veneration approaches theism. It should also be noted that Buddhists were commonly classified as atheistic in anti-Buddhist polemics produced by Hindus, since Buddhists opposed the authority of the [[Vedas]], Vedic priests, and their rituals. Hence, the proclivity to label Buddhists as atheists may have been put in effect by such texts; with this in mind, as well as the recognition and veneration of spiritual beings in some Buddhist schools, Buddhism should only be considered somewhat atheistic.
+
However, all canonical Buddhist texts affirm the ''existence'' (as distinct from the ''authority'') of a great number of spiritual beings, including the [[Vedic]] deities. From the point of view of Western theism, certain concepts found in the [[Mahayana]] school of Buddhism (e.g. the characterization of [[Amitabha]] Buddha and the [[Pure Land]]) may seem to share characteristics with Western concepts of God, despite the fact that Shakyamuni [[Buddha]] himself denied that he was a god or divine. Furthermore, both the Nikaya/Mahayana schools of Buddhism provide deep spiritual regard to [[bodhisattva]]s, highly enlightened beings who are dedicated to assisting all sentient beings in achieving Buddhahood. However, in all cases it is necessary to recall the tradition's dogmatic insistence on the fundamental impermanence of all things. As such, though Amitabha Buddha and various bodhisattvas may be venerated, they are never (doctrinally-speaking) seen as possessing eternal life.
  
 
===Confucianism===
 
===Confucianism===
In the Chinese classics from the [[Shang Dynasty]] (1750-1100 B.C.E.) frequent references are made to Shang-ti, the supreme ruler in heaven who is undeniably anthropomorphic. The [[Chou Dynasty]] (c. 1100) created counterpart concept of T'ien, which referred to "heaven" and "sky". Quickly, the anthropomorphic connotation of such concepts began to dissolve, and T'ien came to refer to a more universal conception of cosmic order or rule. [[Confucius]] viewed obedience to this will of heaven tantamount to no more than following moral maxims. Through living by the ways of the sage kings of the past and thereby nuturing social and familial relationships, Confucius taught that one can come into harmony with the order governing the heavens. [[Mo-tzu]] (468-390 B.C.E.) shifted this focus from an impersonal heaven back to the anthropomorphic conceptions reminiscent of the Shang dynasty, giving it such qualities as love and desire. In doing so, Mo-tzu also suggested the importance of dead ancestors and spirits in everyday life, which redeemed the importance of ceremonial religious practices. [[Hsun-tzu]], however, hearkened back to the teachings of Confucius, and in doing so recorded the first atheistic system of thought in Confucianism. He claimed that heaven was little more than a designation for the natural processes of cosmos, whereby good is rewarded and evil punished. In this conceptualization of the universe, Hsun-tzu denied supernatural beings, spirits, and claimed that religious acts have no effect, a view somewhat congruent with atheism. Neo-Confucian writings, such as that of [[Chu Hsi]], are considerably vaguer as to whether or not their conception of the Great Ultimate is like a personal deity or not, structuring the metaphysical world on impersonal forces such as material force (''chi'') and principle (''li'') rather than god-like entities.
+
[[Confucius]] viewed obedience to the will of [[Heaven]] (''Tian'') as tantamount to correctly following social and ritual prescriptions. [[Xunzi]], a later Confucian, while hearkening back to the teachings of Confucius, developed the first genuinely atheistic system of thought in [[Confucianism]]. He claimed that heaven was little more than a designation for the natural processes of cosmos, whereby good is rewarded and evil punished. In this conceptualization of the universe, Xunzi denied the existence of supernatural beings and spirits, and claimed that religious acts have no effect, a view somewhat congruent with atheism. Neo-Confucian writings, such as those of [[Zhu Xi]], are considerably vaguer as to whether their conception of the Great Ultimate is like a personal deity or not, and whether their metaphysical worlds are structured on impersonal forces (such as material force (''[[qi]]'') and principle (''[[li]]'') rather than on god-like entities.
 +
 
 +
===Daoism===
 +
The [[Dao]], literally translated as "way," represents for Daoists the normative ontological and ethical standard by which the entire universe is constructed. According to [[Laozi]], author of the ''[[Dao De Jing]]'', all things are emanations of the Dao, from which they originate and eventually return. The Dao, however, cannot be described in words and can never be fully comprehended, though it can be perceived ever so vaguely in the processes of nature. The atheistic bent of [[Daoism]] is even more pronounced in the writings of [[Zhuangzi]], who stresses both the futility of metaphysical speculation and the (likely) finality of death.
  
===Taoism===
+
Since the Dao is so impersonal and incomprehensible, and is therefore in marked contrast to theistic belief systems, Daoists could be considered atheistic. Some scholars have claimed otherwise, accepting the concept of the Dao as sufficiently parallel with “god” in the Western understanding. Although the Western translation of the Dao as “god” in some editions of the ''[[Dao De Jing]]'' has been described as highly misleading, it is still a matter of debate whether the actual descriptions of the Dao have theistic or atheistic undertones.
The [[Tao]], literally translated as "way" or "road", represents for Taoists the normative ontological and ethical standard by which the entire universe is constructed. According to [[Lao-Tzu]], author of the [[Dao de ching]], all things are shades of the Tao, from which they originate and eventually return. The Tao, however, cannot be described in words and can never be fully comprehended, though it can be perceived ever so vaguely in the processes of nature. Since the Tao is so impersonal and incomprehensible, and therefore in marked contrast to theistic belief systems, Taoists could be considered atheistic. Some scholars have claimed otherwise, accepting the concept of the Tao as sufficiently parallel with "god" in the Western understanding. Although the Western translation of the Tao as 'god' in some editions of the Tao-te-Ching is highly misleading, it is still a matter of debate whether the actual descriptions of the Tao have theistic or atheistic undertones.
 
  
 
===Other Forms===
 
===Other Forms===
Although atheistic beliefs are often accompanied by a total lack of [[spirituality|spiritual]] beliefs, this is not an essential aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism as is evident in the aforementioned religious traditions. In addition, there are many modern movements which do not believe in god, yet cannot be classified as [[irreligion|irreligious]] or [[secularism|secular]]. The [[Thomasine Church]], for example, teaches that rational illumination (or ''gnosis'') is the ultimate goal of their sacraments and meditations, as opposed to relating to a conception of god. Hence, the church does not require belief in theism. The Fellowship of Reason is an organization based in Atlanta which does not believe in God or other supernatural entities, but nonetheless affirms that churches and other religious organizations function to provide a moral community for their followers. There is also an atheist presence in [[Unitarian Universalism]], an extremely liberal and [[inclusivism|inclusivist]] religion which accepts Buddhist, Christian, pantheist and even atheist creeds into its fold, among others.
+
Although atheistic beliefs are often accompanied by a total lack of [[spirituality|spiritual]] beliefs, this is not an essential aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism, as is evident in the aforementioned religious traditions. In addition, there are many modern movements which do not believe in God, yet cannot be classified as [[irreligion|irreligious]] or [[secularism|secular]]. The [[Thomasine Church]], for example, teaches that rational illumination (or ''[[gnosis]]'') is the ultimate goal of their [[sacrament]]s and [[meditation]]s, as opposed to relating to a conception of God. Hence, the church does not require belief in theism. The Fellowship of Reason is an organization based in Atlanta, Georgia, which does not believe in God or other supernatural entities, but nonetheless affirms that churches and other religious organizations function to provide a moral community for their followers. There is also an atheist presence in [[Unitarian Universalism]], an extremely liberal and [[inclusivism|inclusivist]] religion which accepts Buddhist, Christian, pantheist and even atheist creeds into its fold, among others.
 
 
Another group of religious systems which should be included in this discussion of atheism are those which conceive of God as "non-being". In such instances, believers replace the typical montheistic Abrahamic conception of god as "[[God]]" with God as a philosophical category: the All, the One, the Ultimate, the absolute Infinite, the Divine Ground, [[Being]] or [[Existence]] itself. For example, such views are typical of [[pantheism]], [[panentheism]], and religious [[monism]]. One example of such a belief was developed by [[Protestantism|Protestant]] theologian [[Paul Tillich]], who described God as the ground of being and made the statement that "God does not exist", which lead some to label him as an atheist. Nevertheless, for [[Tillich]], God is not "a" being that exists among other beings, but Being itself. For him, God does not "exist" except as a concept or principle; God is the basis of Being, the [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] power by which Being triumphs over non-Being. However, most people who identify themselves as atheists would also deny this and similar conceptions of God as atheistic, or simply consider them incomprehensible. Also, it should be noted that many pantheists and panentheist resist being labelled as atheists, claiming that such labels are rooted in a mindset limiting God to anthropomorphic traits.
 
  
 
==Criticisms of atheism==
 
==Criticisms of atheism==
  
Throughout human history, atheists and atheism have received much criticism, opposition, and persecution, chiefly from theistic sources. These have ranged from mere philosophical contempt to full-fledge persecution, as in the case of medieval polemics against atheists and Hitler's vendetta against them. The most direct arguments against atheism are those in favor of the existence of deities, which would imply that atheism is simply untrue (for examples of these types of argument, see [[ontological argument]], [[teleological argument]] and [[cosmological argument]]). However, more pointed criticisms exist. Both theists and weak atheists alike criticize the assertiveness of strong atheism, questioning whether or not one can assert the positive knowledge that something does not exist. While the strong atheist can make the claim that no evidence has been found for the existence of god, they cannot make the claim that it will never exist. Atheists who make such statements have often been accused of dogmatism. Ultimately, these critics beleive that atheism, if it is to remain philosophically coherent, should keep an open mind that evidence confirming a transcendent deity could appear in the future, rather than writing off the possibility entirely. This view is known as fallibilistic atheism.  
+
Throughout human history, atheists and atheism have received much criticism, opposition, and persecution, chiefly from theistic sources. These have ranged from mere philosophical contempt to full-fledged persecution, as seen in medieval polemical literature and in Hitler's murderous vendetta against them. The most direct arguments against atheism are those in favor of the existence of deities, which would imply that atheism is simply untrue (for examples of these types of argument, see [[ontological argument]], [[teleological argument]] and [[cosmological argument]]). However, more pointed criticisms exist. Both theists and weak atheists alike criticize the assertiveness of strong atheism, questioning whether or not one can assert the positive knowledge that something does not exist. While the strong atheist can make the claim that no evidence has been found for the existence of God, they cannot prove God does not exist. Atheists who make such statements have often been accused of [[dogma|dogmatism]]. Ultimately, these critics believe that atheism, if it is to remain philosophically coherent, should keep an open mind that evidence confirming a transcendent deity could appear in the future, rather than writing off the possibility entirely.  
  
Another line of criticism has frequently associated atheism with immorality and evil, often characterizing it as a willful and malicious repudiation of divinity. This, in fact, is the original definition and sense of the word, but changing sensibilities and the normalization of nonreligious viewpoints have allowed the term to shed most of its negative connotations in general parlance. Although atheism has evolved and broadened beyond the narrow meaning of "wickedness", impiety, heresy and religious denial over the last few hundred years, some still attribute such transgression to the word. These opinions on atheism have no doubt been shaped largely by the negative connotation which term held for much of history, such as the label of practical atheists: those who behaved so incorrigibly as to deny god's existence. This view of atheism as inherently evil has been countered by atheists who have pointed to the acts of immorality which have in many instances been inspired by religion throughout history.
+
Another line of criticism has frequently associated atheism with immorality and evil, often characterizing it as a willful and malicious repudiation of divinity. This trend, as discussed above, has a long history and is likely tied to the once-undeniable role of religion as sole source of moral instruction. The modern secularization of the world and the growing acceptance of the sciences are currently diminishing the validity of this particular critique.
  
Regardless of the attempts made by atheists to defend their philosophical stance and alleviate negative mistunderstandings of their beliefs, sentiments towards atheism are still somewhat discouraging. A [[2006]] study by researchers at the [[University of Minnesota]] involving a poll of 2,000 households in the [[United States]] found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, outranking Muslims, recent immigrants, and homosexuals, among others. Not surprisingly, many of these respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour, extreme materialism, and elitism.
+
Regardless of the attempts made by atheists to defend their philosophical stance and alleviate negative misunderstandings of their beliefs, atheism is still viewed rather negatively by the general public. A 2006 study by researchers at the [[University of Minnesota]] involving a poll of two thousand households in the [[United States]] found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities. Many of these respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behavior, extreme materialism, and elitism.  
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
Line 139: Line 137:
 
* [[secularism]]
 
* [[secularism]]
 
* [[theism]]
 
* [[theism]]
 +
 +
==Footnotes==
 +
<references />
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
*Altizer, Thomas J.J. ''The Gospel of Christian Atheism.'' London: Collins, 1967. [http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=523 Electronic Text]
+
*Ayer, A. J. “What I Believe.''Humanist'' 81(8) (1966): 226-228.
*Armstrong, Karen. ''A History of God.'' London: Vintage, 1999 ISBN 0099273675
+
*Baggini, Julian. ''Atheism: A Very Short Introduction.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0192804243
*Ayer, A. J. ''What I Believe.'' '''in''' ''Humanist'', Vol 81 (8) p.226-228. 1966. 
+
*Berman, David. ''A History of Atheism in Britain: from Hobbes to Russell.'' London: Routledge, 1990. ISBN 0415047277
*Baggini, Julian. ''Atheism: A very short introduction.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0192804243.
+
*Berman, David. “David Hume and the Suppression of Atheism.''Journal of the History of Philosophy'' 21(3) (1983): 375-387.
*Barrett, David, George Kurian, and Todd Johnson. ''World Christian Encyclopedia''. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001.
+
*Borne, Étienne. ''Atheism.'' New York, NY: Hawthorn Books, 1961.
*Berman, David. ''A History of Atheism in Britain: from Hobbes to Russell.'' London: Routledge, 1990. ISBN 0415047277.
+
*Buckley, M. J. ''At the Origins of Modern Atheism.'' New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990. ISBN 978-0300048971
*Berman, David. ''David Hume and the Suppression of Atheism.'' '''in''' ''Journal of the History of Philosophy'', Vol. 21 (3), p.375-387. 1983.
+
*Cudworth, Ralph. ''The True Intellectual System of the Universe: The First Part, Wherein all the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is Confuted and its Impossibility Demonstrated''. Reprint edition. Nabu Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1143641428
*Berman, David. ''The Repressive Denials of Atheism in Britain in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries'' '''in''' ''Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy'', Vol. 82c, (9), p.211-246. 1982.
+
*d'Holbach, P. H. T. 1772. ''Good Sense.'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7319 Electronic Text] at Project Gutenberg. Retrieved September 5, 2007.
*Borne, Étienne. ''Atheism.'' New York: Hawthorn Books, 1961. [Originally published in France under the title ''Dieu n’est pas mort: essai sur l’atheisme contemporain.'' Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1959]
+
*d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). ''The System of Nature.'' Available online from Project Gutenberg:
*Bradlaugh Bonner, Hypatia. ''Charles Bradlaugh: a record of his life and work.'' London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1908.  
+
**[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8909 Vol. 1]
*Buckley, M. J. ''At the origins of modern atheism.'' New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.  
+
**[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8910 Vol. 2]
*Cudworth, Ralph (1678). ''The True Intellectual System of the Universe: the first part, wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted and its impossibility demonstrated''.
+
*de Mornay, Phillipe. ''A woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists''. London, 1587.  
*d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). ''Good Sense.'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7319 Electronic Text]
+
*Drachmann, A. B. ''Atheism in Pagan Antiquity''. Chicago, IL: Ares Publishers, 1977 (original 1922). ISBN 0890052018
*d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). ''The system of nature.'' Electronic versions:  
+
*Everitt, Nicholas. ''The Non-existence of God: An Introduction.'' London: Routledge, 2004. ISBN 0415301076
**[http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/holbach/ ''complete text'' (pdf)]
+
*Flew, Antony. ''God and Philosophy.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005. ISBN 978-1591023302
**[http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/holbach/system/0syscontents.htm ''complete text'' (html)]
+
*Flew, Antony. ''God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1984. ISBN 0879751274
*de Mornay, Phillipe. ''A woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists''. London, 1587.
+
*Flew, Antony. “The Presumption of Atheism,” in ''God Freedom and Immorality: A Critical Analysis''. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1984.
*Drachmann, A. B. ''Atheism in Pagan Antiquity''. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1977. ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition"). ISBN 0890052018.
+
**[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm Available online] from ''Positive Atheism''. Retrieved September 5, 2007.
*Everitt, Nicholas. ''The Non-existence of God: An Introduction.'' London: Routledge, 2004. ISBN 0415301076.
+
*Flint, Robert. ''Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877'', 5th ed. London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1894.
*[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html ''Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say'']
+
*Gaskin, J. C. A. (ed.). ''Varieties of Unbelief: from Epicurus to Sartre.'' New York, NY: Macmillan, 1989. ISBN 002340681X
*Flew, Antony. ''God and Philosophy.'' London: Hutchinson & Co, 1966.  
+
*Harbour, Daniel. ''An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism.'' London: Duckworth, 2001. ISBN 0715632299
*Flew, Antony. ''God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis.'' Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984. ISBN 0879751274.
+
*James, George Alfred. "Atheism." ''Encyclopedia of Religion''. Edited by Mercia Eliade. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing, 1987.  
*Flew, Antony. ''The Presumption of Atheism''. New York: Prometheus, 1984.
+
*Krueger, D. E. ''What is Atheism?: A Short Introduction.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1998. ISBN 1573922145
**[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm ''complete text'' (html)]
+
*Le Poidevin, R. ''Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.'' London: Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0415093384
*Flew, Antony. ''The Presumption of Atheism''. '''in''' ''Canadian Journal of Philosophy'', 2, p.29-46. 1972.
+
* Levin, S. ''Jewish Atheism.'' ''New Humanist'' 110(2) (1995): 13-15.
*Flint, Robert ''Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877, 5th ed,'' London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1894.
+
* Lovgren, Stefan. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html “Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say.”] ''National Geographic'' (October 18, 2004). Retrieved September 5, 2007.
*Gaskin, J.C.A. (ed). ''Varieties of Unbelief: from Epicurus to Sartre.'' New York: Macmillan, 1989. ISBN 002340681X.
+
*Lyas, Colin. “On the Coherence of Christian Atheism.” ''Philosophy: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy'' 45(171) (1970): 1-19.
*Harbour, Daniel. ''An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism.'' London: Duckworth, 2001. ISBN 0715632299.
+
*Mackie, J. L. ''The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. ISBN 019824682X
*Hitchens, Christopher. ''Letters to a Young Contrarian''. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
+
*Maritain, Jacques. ''The Range of Reason.'' London: Geoffrey Bles, 1953. [http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/range.htm Available online] from The Jacques Maritain Center, University of Notre Dame. Retrieved September 5, 2007.  
*James, George Alfred. "Atheism." ''Encyclopedia of Religion'', Mercia Eliade, ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1987.  
+
*Martin, Michael. ''Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.'' Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990. ISBN 0877229430
*Kedem, Peri. “Dimensions of Jewish Religiosity.” Pages 33-62 In Israeli Judaism, Shlomo Deshen, Charles Liebman, and Mishe Shokeid, eds. London, UK: Transaction Publishers, 1995.
+
*Martin, Michael, and R. Monnier (eds.). ''The Impossibility of God.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. ISBN 1591021200
*Krueger, D. E. ''What is atheism?: A short introduction.'' New York: Prometheus, 1998. ISBN 1573922145.
+
*McGrath, A. ''The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World''. Toronto: Doubleday, 2004. ISBN 0385500629
*Le Poidevin, R. ''Arguing for atheism: An introduction to the philosophy of religion.'' London: Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0415093384.
+
*Mills, D. ''Atheist Universe''. Xlibris, 2004. ISBN 1413434819
*Levin, S. ''Jewish Atheism.'' '''in''' ''New Humanist'', Vol 110 (2), p.13-15. 1995.
+
*Nagel, Ernest. “A Defence of Atheism,” in ''A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources,'' edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap, 460-472. New York, NY: Free Press, 1965.
*Lyas, Colin. ''On the Coherence of Christian Atheism.'' '''in''' ''Philosophy: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy.'' Vol. 45 (171), pp.1-19. 1970.
+
*Nielsen, Kai. ''Philosophy and Atheism.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1985. ISBN 0879752890
*Mackie, J. L. ''The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God.'' Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. ISBN 019824682X.
+
*Reid, J. P. “Atheism,” in ''New Catholic Encyclopedia'', 1000-1003. New York, NY McGraw-Hill, 1967.
*Maritain, Jacques. ''The Range of Reason.'' London: Geoffrey Bles, 1953. [http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/range.htm Electronic Text]  
+
*Robinson, Richard. ''An Atheist's Values.'' Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing, 1975. ISBN 978-0631159704
**Note: Chapter 8, ''The Meaning of Contemporary Atheism'' (p.103-117, [http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/range08.htm Electronic Text]) is reprinted from ''Review of Politics'', Vol. 11 (3) July 1949, p. 267-280 [http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/jm3303.htm Electronic Text]. A version also appears ''The Listener'', Vol. 43 No.1102, [[9 March]] [[1950]]. pp.427-429,432.
+
*Sharpe, R.A. ''The Moral Case Against Religious Belief.'' London: SCM Press, 1997. ISBN 0334026806
*Martin, Michael. ''Atheism: A philosophical justification.'' Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990. ISBN 0877229430.
+
*Smith, George H. ''Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies''. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990. ISBN 978-0879755775
*Martin, Michael, & Monnier, R. (Eds.). ''The impossibility of God.'' New York: Prometheus, 2003.
+
**Excerpt: “Defining Atheism” at ''Positive Atheism''.
*McGrath, A. ''The Twilight of Atheism : The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World''. Toronto: Doubleday, 2004. ISBN 0385500629
+
*Smith, George H. ''Atheism: The Case Against God''. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1979. ISBN 087975124X
*McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis. ''The Nature of Existence.'' Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927.
+
**[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm Excerpt: “The Scope of Atheism”] at ''Positive Atheism''. Retrieved September 5, 2007.
*McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis. ''Some Dogmas of Religion.'' London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1930. [new edition; First published 1906]
+
*Sobel, Jordan H. ''Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN 0521826071
*Mills, D. ''Atheist Universe''. Xlibris, 2004. ISBN 1413434819.
+
*Stein, G. (ed.). ''The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief''. 2 vols. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1984. ISBN 0879753072
*Müller, F. Max. ''Natural Religion: The Gifford Lectures, 1888.'' London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1889.
+
*"Systems of Religious and Spiritual Belief." ''The New Encyclopedia Britannica''. Vol. 26, 530-577. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2002.  
*Nagel, Ernest. ''A Defence of Atheism.'' '''in''' Edwards, Paul and Pap, Arthur (eds), ''A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: readings from classical and contemporary sources.'' New York: Free Press. pp.460-472. 1965.
+
*Thrower, James. ''A Short History of Western Atheism.'' London: Pemberton, 1971. ISBN 0301711011
*Nielsen, Kai. ''Philosophy and Atheism.'' New York: Prometheus, 1985. ISBN 0879752890.
+
*Vitz, Paul. ''Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism.'' Dallas, TX: Spence, 1999. ISBN 1890626120
*Nielsen, Kai. ''Naturalism and religion.'' New York: Prometheus, 2001.
+
 
*Reid, J.P. ''Atheism.'' '''in''' ''New Catholic Encyclopedia''. New York: McGraw-Hill. p.1000-1003. 1967.
+
== External links==
*Rizzuto, Ana-Maria. ''Why did Freud reject God?: A psychoanalytic interpretation.'' Yale University Press, 1998. ISBN 0300075251.
+
All links retrieved November 9, 2021
*Robinson, Richard. ''An Atheist's Values.'' Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
 
*Sharpe, R.A. ''The Moral Case Against Religious Belief.'' London: SCM Press, 1997. ISBN 0334026806.
 
*Smith, George H. ''Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies''. New York: Prometheus, 1990.
 
**[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm Excerpt: ''Defining atheism'' (html)]
 
*Smith, George H. ''Atheism: The Case Against God''. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus, 1979. ISBN 087975124X.
 
**[http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm Excerpt: ''The Scope of Atheism'' (html)]
 
*Sobel, Jordan H. ''Logic and theism: Arguments for and against beliefs in God.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
 
*Soltis, P.S. et al. ''Genetic variation in Tragopogan Species: Additional Origins of Allotetraploids T. mirius and T. miscellus (Compositae)''. American Journal of Botany, 1995.
 
*Stenger, Victor J. ''Has science found God?.'' New York: Prometheus, 2003.
 
*Stein, G. (Ed.) ''The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief'' (Vols. 1-2). New York: Prometheus. ISBN 0879753072, 1984.
 
*"Systems of Religious and Spiritual Belief." The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Volume 26 Macropaedia. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2002. 530-577.
 
*Thrower, James. ''A Short History of Western Atheism.'' London: Pemberton, 1971. ISBN 0301711011.
 
*Vitz, Paul. ''Faith of the fatherless: the psychology of atheism.'' Dallas, Texas: Spence, 1999. ISBN 1890626120.
 
  
[[Category:Philosophy and religion]] [[Category:Religion]]
+
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]
 +
===General Philosophy Sources===
 +
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 +
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
 +
*[http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html Paideia Project Online]
 +
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg]  
  
 +
[[Category:Philosophy and religion]]
 +
[[Category:Philosophy]]
 +
[[Category:Religion]]
 
{{Credit2|Atheism|61956128|History_of_atheism|60911142}}
 
{{Credit2|Atheism|61956128|History_of_atheism|60911142}}

Revision as of 06:12, 9 January 2023

Atheism (from Greek: a + theos + ismos "not believing in god") refers in its broadest sense to a denial of theism (the belief in the existence of a single deity or deities). Atheism has many shades and types. Some atheists strongly deny the existence of God (or any form of deity) and attack theistic claims. Yet certainty as to the non-existence of God is as much a belief as is religion and rests on equally unprovable claims. Just as religious believers range from the ecumenical to the narrow-minded, atheists range from those for whom it is a matter of personal philosophy to those who are militantly hostile to religion.

Did you know?
"Positive" or "strong" atheism is the assertion that no deities exist while "negative" or "weak" atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of any deity

Atheism often buttresses its case on science, yet many modern scientists, far from being atheists, have argued that science is not incompatible with theism.

Some traditional religious belief systems are said to be "atheist" or "non-theist," but this can be misleading. While Jainism technically can be described as philosophically materialist (and even this is subtle vis-à-vis the divine), the claim about Buddhism being atheistic is more difficult to make. Metaphysical questions put to the Buddha about whether or not God exists received from him one of his famous "silences." It is inaccurate to deduce from this that the Buddha denied the existence of God. His silence had far more to do with the distracting nature of speculation and dogma than it had to do with the existence or non-existence of God.

Many people living in the West have the impression that atheism is on the rise around the world, and that the belief in God is being replaced with a more secular-oriented worldview. However, this view is not confirmed. Studies have consistently shown that contrary to popular assumptions, religious membership is actually increasing globally.

The Rationale of Atheism

Atheism is a belief that is held for a variety of reasons.

Logical reasons

Some atheists base their stance on philosophical grounds, arguing that their position is based on logical rejection of theistic claims. Indeed, many atheists claim that their view is merely the absence of a certain belief, suggesting that the burden of proving God's existence is upon theists. In this line of thought, it follows that if theism's arguments can be refuted, non-theism becomes the default position. Many atheists have argued for centuries against the most popular "proofs" of God's existence, noting problems in the theist lines of reasoning. Atheists who attack specific forms of theism often claim it as being self-contradictory. One of the most common arguments against the existence of the Christian God is the problem of evil, which Christian apologist William Lane Craig has referred to as "atheism's killer argument." This line of reasoning claims that the presence of evil in the world is logically inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent God. Instead, atheists claim it is more coherent to conclude that God does not exist than to believe that He/She does exist but readily allows the promulgation of evil.

A form of atheism known as "ignosticism," asserts that the question of whether or not deities exist is inherently meaningless. It is a popular view among many logical positivists such as Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who claim that talk of gods is literally nonsensical. For them, theological statements (such as those affirming god's existence) cannot have any truth value, since they lack falsifiability. This refers to the fact that claims of transcendence and of metaphysical properties cannot be tested by empirical means and must therefore be rejected as null hypotheses. In Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer stated that theism, atheism and agnosticism were equally meaningless terms, insofar as they treat the question of the existence of God as a real question. However, despite Ayer's criticism of atheism as a concept (perhaps using the definition typically associated with strong atheism), ignosticism is still considered as a form of atheism in most classifications of religious thought.

Scientific reasons

As a further development of the rationalist position, many feel that theories of divine creation blatantly conflict with modern science, especially evolution. For some atheists, this conflict is reason enough to reject theism. Evolutionary science, supported by a large body of paleontological and genomic evidence and accepted by the overwhelming majority of biologists, describes how complex life has developed through a slow process of random mutation and natural selection. It is now known that humans share 98 percent of our genetic code with chimpanzees, 90 percent with mice, 21 percent with roundworms, and seven percent with the bacterium E. coli. This humbling perspective is quite different from that of most theistic traditions, such as the Abrahamic religions, in which humans are thought to be created "in God's image" and are existentially distinguished from the other "beasts of the Earth." Similarly, astronomical facts, such as the recognition of Earth's Sun as only one undistinguished star among billions in the Milky Way, are seen by some atheists as rendering implausible the proposition that this universe was created with mankind in mind. Finally, some atheists argue that religion emerged as a pseudo-scientific explanation for natural phenomena and that, with the progress of human scientific endeavor, these etiological myths have been rendered unnecessary.

All this said, it is also true that there are many scientists, Newton and Einstein among them, who do not believe that science is incompatible with the existence of God. Darwinian evolution, for example, can be understood as a method God developed for the propagation of life.

Personal and Practical reasons

In addition to using philosophical arguments, there are those atheists who cite social, psychological, and practical reasons for their beliefs. Many people are atheists not as a result of philosophical deliberation, but rather because of the means by which they were brought up or educated. Some people are atheists at least partly because of growing up in an environment where atheism is relatively common, such as those who are raised by atheist parents. Some people are led to atheism by unpleasant experiences with their inherited traditions.

Some atheists claim that their beliefs have positive practical effects on their lives. For instance, atheism may allow one to open their mind to a wide variety of perspectives and worldviews since they are not committed to dogmatic beliefs. However, since rigidly-held atheism may be a dogmatic belief, those with an open mind are more likely to be agnostics. Such atheists may hold that searching for explanations through natural science can be more beneficial than searching through faith, the latter of which often draws irreconcilable dividing lines between individuals with different beliefs.

Typology of atheism

The first attempts to define or develop a typology annotating the varieties of atheism occurred in religious apologetics, which typically depicted atheism as a licentious belief system. Regardless, a diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato, and common distinctions have been established between practical atheism and contemplative or speculative atheism. Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, or willful ignorance. Atheists in the practical sense were those who behaved as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist.

On the other hand, speculative atheism, which involves philosophical contemplation of the nonexistence of god(s), was often denied by theists throughout history. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. Thus, speculative atheism was collapsed into a form of practical atheism, or conceptualized as a hateful fight against God. These negative connotations are one of the reasons for the (continued) popularity of euphemistic alternative terms for atheists, like secularist, empiricist, and agnostic. These connotations likely arise from attempts at suppression and from historical associations with practical atheism. Indeed, the term godless is still used as an abusive epithet. Thinkers such as J. C. A. Gaskin have abandoned the term atheism in favor of unbelief, citing the fact that both the derogatory associations of the term and its vagueness in the public eye have rendered atheism an undesirable label. Despite these considerations, for others atheist has always been the preferred title, and several types of atheism have been identified by writers.

Weak and strong atheism

Some writers distinguish between weak and strong atheism. “Weak atheism,” sometimes called “soft atheism,” “negative atheism” or “neutral atheism,” is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. In this sense, weak atheism may be considered a form of agnosticism. These atheists may have no opinion regarding the existence of deities, either because of a lack of interest in the matter (a viewpoint referred to as apatheism), or a belief that the arguments and evidence provided by both theists and strong atheists are equally unpersuasive. Specifically, they argue that theism and strong atheism are equally untenable, on the grounds that asserting or denying the existence of deities requires a faith-claim.

On the other hand, “strong atheism,” also known as “hard atheism” or “positive atheism,” is the positive assertion that no deities exist. Many strong atheists have the additional view that positive statements of nonexistence are merited when evidence or arguments indicate that a deity's nonexistence is certain or probable. Strong atheism may be based on arguments that the concept of a deity is self-contradictory and therefore impossible (positive ignosticism), or that one or more attributes of a deity are incompatible with worldly realities.

Implicit and explicit atheism

The terms implicit and explicit atheism were coined by George H. Smith in 1979 for purposes of understanding atheism more narrowly. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as the lack of theistic belief without conscious rejection of it. Explicit atheism, meanwhile, is defined by a conscious rejection of theistic belief and is sometimes called "antitheism."

As it happens, Smith's definition of explicit atheism is also the most common among laypeople. For laypersons, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the belief that there is no god. Thus, most laypeople would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (implicit atheism) as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as skepticism or agnosticism. Such usage is not exclusive to laypeople, however, as many atheist philosophers, including Theodore Drange, use the narrow definition.

Antitheism

Antitheism typically refers to a direct opposition to theism. In this sense, it is a form of critical strong atheism. While in other senses atheism merely denies the existence of deities, antitheists may go so far as to believe that theism is actually harmful for human beings. As well, they may simply be atheists who have little tolerance for theistic views, which they perceive to be irrational/dangerous. However, antitheism is also sometimes used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to God or divine things, rather than an opposition to the belief in God. Using the latter definition, it is possible to be an antitheist without being an atheist or nontheist.

Atheism in philosophical naturalism

Despite the fact that many, if not most, atheists have preferred to claim that atheism is a lack of a belief rather than a belief in its own right, some atheist writers identify atheism with the naturalistic world view and defend it on that basis. The case for naturalism is used as a positive argument for atheism. For example, James Thrower proposes a "naturalistic" interpretation of events in the world, which takes nature as the paramount explanatory cause. As this worldview does not assert belief in any god beyond nature, it is therefore atheistic. Similarly, Julian Baggini argues that atheism must be understood not as a denial of religion, but instead as an affirmation of and commitment to the one world of nature. For Baggini, all unnatural (and supernatural) causes must be dismissed: "God is just one of the things that atheists don't believe in, it just happens to be the thing that, for historical reasons, gave them their name.[1] This variation of atheism, then, denies not only god(s) but also the existence of souls and other supernatural entities.

Atheism and philosophy

Atheism has been historically used in two senses.

1. Atheism has been a label given to a broad range of perspectives including pantheism and agnosticism, primarily by monotheists or religious authorities. These perspectives did not necessarily deny mystical or spiritual aspects of the world or of certain deities. The term “atheism” in this sense was coined in the sixteenth century to criticize positions that did not comply with the authorized views of the Christian church. The term is now extended to a wide variety of views whose contexts are quite different.

For example, Baruch Spinoza was denounced and labeled as an “atheist” by both Jewish and Christian authorities for over a century and Johann Gottlieb Fichte was expelled from university for the charge of “atheism.” Even Immanuel Kant, a Christian thinker, was accused as being “atheistic.”

2. Materialism. This position denies the reality or existence of any deity, being transcendent or immanent. It should be sharply distinguished from pantheism, agnosticism, and religious naturalism. Materialist atheism has an explicit ontological commitment for the denial of the reality of spiritual or divine being in any form.

Those who held this position include eighteenth-century French materialists such as Julien Offray de La Mettrie, Baron d’Holbach, and Denis Diderot and their ideological successors in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries such as Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

During the Age of Enlightenment, atheism became the philosophical position of a growing minority, headed by the openly atheistic works of d'Holbach. In the nineteenth century, atheism became a powerful political tool through the writings of Feuerbach, who claimed God was a fictional projection fabricated by man. This idea greatly influenced Marx, the founder of communism, who believed that laborers turn to religion in order to dull the pain caused by the reality of social situations. Other atheists of the period included Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre and Sigmund Freud. The overall popularity of atheism in the nineteenth century led Nietzsche to coin the aphorism "God is dead." By the twentieth century, along with the spread of rationalism and secular humanism, atheism had become more widespread, particularly among scientists.

Materialistic atheism challenges any position, policy, institution, and movement that is based upon the assumption of the existence of a deity and spiritual dimension. The most radical and socially affective form of materialistic atheism in contemporary society is Marxism and its extensions. Furthermore, those materialistic atheists who actively seek to undermine existing religions are sometimes labeled as militant atheists. During the period of communist ascendancy, militant atheism enjoyed the full apparatus of the state, making it possible to attack religion and believers by every means imaginable with impunity. This included political, social, and military attacks on believers, and suppression of religion.

Atheism and World Religions

Ancient Greek and Roman

Socrates

The oldest known variation of Western-style, philosophical atheism is attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus around 300 B.C.E. The goal of the Epicureans was mainly to alleviate fear of divine wrath by portraying it as irrational. One of the most eloquent expressions of Epicurean thought is found in Lucretius' On the Nature of Things (first century B.C.E.). He denied the existence of an afterlife and thought that if gods existed they were uninterested in human existence. For these reasons, they may be better described as materialists than atheists. Epicureans were not persecuted, but their teachings were controversial, and were harshly attacked by the mainstream schools of Stoicism and Neoplatonism.

Many other Greek philosophers critiqued the then-prevalent henotheistic beliefs. Xenophanes, for instance, claimed that anthropomorphic and often immoral portrayals of the many gods were merely projections of humanity upon the divine. Ionic naturalists provided (pre-scientific) explanations for phenomena that had been previously been attributed to the gods. Democritus put forth the thesis that all phenomena in the world were merely transformations of eternal atoms, rather than anthropomorphic divinities. The Sophists criticized the various gods as products of human society and imagination. Critias, a famed dramatist and contemporary of Socrates, had one of his characters put forth the view that gods existed merely to bolster and reify societal codes of morality. Atheist thought culminated in the Greek tradition with Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who was the first to explicitly deny all forms of theism and the existence of any type of god.

Politically speaking, these developments were problematic, as theism was the fundamental belief that supported the divine right of the State in both Greece and Rome. As such, any person who did not believe in the deities supported by the State was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime. For political reasons, Socrates in Athens (399 B.C.E.) was accused of being atheos (or "refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state"). Early Christians in Rome were also considered subversive to the state religion and were thereby prosecuted as atheists. As such, it can be seen that charges of atheism (referring to the subversion of religion) were often used as a political mechanism by which to eliminate dissent.

Judaism

Belief in god is an indispensable requirement of the Jewish faith. This is evidenced by Judaism's paramount prayer, the Shema Israel, which asserts the monotheistic nature of god. Nonetheless, some strains of atheism have still originated from within the Judaic faith. For example, Richard Rubinstein, a Conservative rabbi who spent three years of his youth imprisoned at Auschwitz, put forward the claim that God died at that very concentration camp. God's failure to save the Jews, according to Rubinstein, marked a severance in the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Hence, the Jews were to face the universe alone as atheists; however, Rubenstein implored the Jewish people to retain their identity by continuing to follow moral imperatives laid out by God before his demise. Due to the extremely pessimistic tone of this notion, and the theological difficulties that arise with the claim that God can somehow cease to exist, Rubinstein's atheism was largely rejected.

In many modern movements in Judaism, rabbis have generally considered the behavior of a Jew to be the determining factor in whether or not one is considered an adherent of Judaism. Within these movements it is sometimes acknowledged that it is possible for a Jew to strictly practice Judaism as a faith, while at the same time being an agnostic or atheist. Some Jewish atheists reject Judaism altogether, but wish to continue identifying themselves with the Jewish people and culture. Jewish atheists who practice Humanistic Judaism embrace Jewish culture and history as the sources of their Jewish identity, rather than belief in a supernatural god.

Likewise, Jewish Reconstructionism is not dogmatic in many of its articles of faith, including belief in a deity, which is not required. As such, many Reconstructionist Jews adhere to deism, or else reject theism altogether and do not believe in any God. Sentiments toward atheist Jews are sometimes even quite positive. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, first chief rabbi of the Jewish community in pre-state Israel, held that atheists do not actually deny God, but rather help toward a fuller realization of god. That is, atheists deny one of humanity's many images of God. Since any man-made image of God can be considered an idol, Kook held that, in practice, one could consider atheists as helping true religion eschew false images of God, in the end serving the purpose of true monotheism.

Christianity

Christianity, as a theistic and proselytizing religion, views atheism as sinful. According to Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Additionally, according to John 3:18-19, "He that believeth in him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." These passages suggest that those who reject the divinity of Jesus do so because of a proclivity to do evil, rather than evil being a consequence of their disbelief.

Islam

In Islam, atheists are categorized as kafir (كافر). This term translates roughly to "denier" or "concealer" and is also used to describe polytheists. In Islam, denial of god in such a way is one of the paramount transgressions, and as such, the noun kafir carries connotations of blasphemy and utter disconnection from the Islamic community. In Arabic, "atheism" is generally translated ilhad (إلحاد), which also means "heresy." The Qur'an is silent on the punishment for apostasy, though not on the subject itself. The Qur'an speaks repeatedly of people going back to unbelief after believing, but does not say that they should be killed or punished. Nonetheless, atheists have been subjected to such punishments throughout history in Islamic countries. Hence, atheists in such places frequently conceal their non-belief.

Hinduism

Several explicitly atheist schools emerged out of the writings of the Vedas, the texts that contain the core teachings of Hinduism. Of the six orthodox (astika) schools, Samkhya and Mimamsa, can be characterized as atheistic. Unlike other astika schools, Samkhya lacks the notion of a “higher being” that is the ground of all existence. Instead, Samkhya proposes a thoroughly dualistic understanding of the cosmos, in which two coexisting realities form the basis of reality: Purusha, the spiritual and Prakriti, the physical. The aim of life is the attainment of liberating self-knowledge through the separation of Purusha (spirit) from Prakriti (matter). Here, no God is present, yet Ultimate Reality in the form of the Purusha does exist. Therefore, Samkhya can be said to be a variety of Hinduism which falls into the classification of theistic atheism.

The Mimamsa schools focused their primary inquiry more upon the nature of dharma than the properties of a supreme deity. In doing so, they rejected theistic conceptions of the cosmos more outwardly than did the Samkhya. These rejections were developed in response to the theistic arguments being developed by the Nyaya and Vaisesika schools. The Purva Mimamsa school attacked their lines of reasoning vehemently, asserting no such god existed. Though Uttara Mimamsa (a sister school) was less forceful in its rejection of personal theism, it still viewed the concept of God as being ultimately illusory.

As well, Carvaka (also Charvaka) was an explicitly atheist school of Indian philosophy. It was not a religious tradition but rather a materialist school of thought, which rejected all sources of knowledge other than the senses. For the Charvakan, only the physical world exists, and therefore the only purpose of life is to live long and enjoy physical pleasures. There is no afterlife, no soul, and no God to them.

Jainism

Another heterodox school of Indian thought that is explicitly atheistic is Jainism. However, unlike the Carvakas, Jains acknowledge a spiritual realm beyond the physical, believing that the soul (jiva) is caught in an endless cycle of rebirth, and limited from its potential for eternal bliss by the material world. Jains follow a rigorous path of asceticism in order to release the soul from this cycle. The Jain cosmos is eternal, having no beginning and no end, which they believe obviates the necessity of having a creator. Additionally, Jain teachings provide a plethora of other arguments as to why there is no need for the conception of a god. These include many parallels with arguments for atheism from other traditions, including questions of divine mutability, perfection and accountability (theodicy). Hence, Jain philosophy denies all theistic sentiment.

While Jains have to some extent venerated Mahavira (the last prophet (Tirthankara) who achieved kevala—enlightenment or absolute knowledge—and systematized the Jain doctrine) throughout history (and still do at present), their gratitude toward him can hardly be considered the worship of a god.

Buddhism

While some schools of Buddhism—such as Theravada—are called atheistic, this label is misleading because Buddhism does believe in God but does not see them as eternal or creative forces in the origin of the universe. It also sees such gods as stuck in the wheel of samsara (rebirth and suffering). In the Pali Canon, earliest of the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha criticizes the concept of a changeless deity as highly incoherent. Vasubandhu and Yasomitra, later Buddhist writers, note that if god is the singular cause of all things in existence, then all things should logically have been created at once. Since the world is constantly spawning new forms, however, one cause could never be considered adequate for the totality of existence. Further, since all things are created out of a succession of dharmas in a process called pratitya-samutpada, without exception everything is dependent on something else in order to come into existence. This precludes the possibility of an original cause without cause, as was popular in Aristotelian conceptions of God. Like the Jains, Buddhists also question a creator god's motivation for rendering the world, noting that god must enjoy human suffering, having created a world replete with it.

However, all canonical Buddhist texts affirm the existence (as distinct from the authority) of a great number of spiritual beings, including the Vedic deities. From the point of view of Western theism, certain concepts found in the Mahayana school of Buddhism (e.g. the characterization of Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land) may seem to share characteristics with Western concepts of God, despite the fact that Shakyamuni Buddha himself denied that he was a god or divine. Furthermore, both the Nikaya/Mahayana schools of Buddhism provide deep spiritual regard to bodhisattvas, highly enlightened beings who are dedicated to assisting all sentient beings in achieving Buddhahood. However, in all cases it is necessary to recall the tradition's dogmatic insistence on the fundamental impermanence of all things. As such, though Amitabha Buddha and various bodhisattvas may be venerated, they are never (doctrinally-speaking) seen as possessing eternal life.

Confucianism

Confucius viewed obedience to the will of Heaven (Tian) as tantamount to correctly following social and ritual prescriptions. Xunzi, a later Confucian, while hearkening back to the teachings of Confucius, developed the first genuinely atheistic system of thought in Confucianism. He claimed that heaven was little more than a designation for the natural processes of cosmos, whereby good is rewarded and evil punished. In this conceptualization of the universe, Xunzi denied the existence of supernatural beings and spirits, and claimed that religious acts have no effect, a view somewhat congruent with atheism. Neo-Confucian writings, such as those of Zhu Xi, are considerably vaguer as to whether their conception of the Great Ultimate is like a personal deity or not, and whether their metaphysical worlds are structured on impersonal forces (such as material force (qi) and principle (li) rather than on god-like entities.

Daoism

The Dao, literally translated as "way," represents for Daoists the normative ontological and ethical standard by which the entire universe is constructed. According to Laozi, author of the Dao De Jing, all things are emanations of the Dao, from which they originate and eventually return. The Dao, however, cannot be described in words and can never be fully comprehended, though it can be perceived ever so vaguely in the processes of nature. The atheistic bent of Daoism is even more pronounced in the writings of Zhuangzi, who stresses both the futility of metaphysical speculation and the (likely) finality of death.

Since the Dao is so impersonal and incomprehensible, and is therefore in marked contrast to theistic belief systems, Daoists could be considered atheistic. Some scholars have claimed otherwise, accepting the concept of the Dao as sufficiently parallel with “god” in the Western understanding. Although the Western translation of the Dao as “god” in some editions of the Dao De Jing has been described as highly misleading, it is still a matter of debate whether the actual descriptions of the Dao have theistic or atheistic undertones.

Other Forms

Although atheistic beliefs are often accompanied by a total lack of spiritual beliefs, this is not an essential aspect, or even a necessary consequence, of atheism, as is evident in the aforementioned religious traditions. In addition, there are many modern movements which do not believe in God, yet cannot be classified as irreligious or secular. The Thomasine Church, for example, teaches that rational illumination (or gnosis) is the ultimate goal of their sacraments and meditations, as opposed to relating to a conception of God. Hence, the church does not require belief in theism. The Fellowship of Reason is an organization based in Atlanta, Georgia, which does not believe in God or other supernatural entities, but nonetheless affirms that churches and other religious organizations function to provide a moral community for their followers. There is also an atheist presence in Unitarian Universalism, an extremely liberal and inclusivist religion which accepts Buddhist, Christian, pantheist and even atheist creeds into its fold, among others.

Criticisms of atheism

Throughout human history, atheists and atheism have received much criticism, opposition, and persecution, chiefly from theistic sources. These have ranged from mere philosophical contempt to full-fledged persecution, as seen in medieval polemical literature and in Hitler's murderous vendetta against them. The most direct arguments against atheism are those in favor of the existence of deities, which would imply that atheism is simply untrue (for examples of these types of argument, see ontological argument, teleological argument and cosmological argument). However, more pointed criticisms exist. Both theists and weak atheists alike criticize the assertiveness of strong atheism, questioning whether or not one can assert the positive knowledge that something does not exist. While the strong atheist can make the claim that no evidence has been found for the existence of God, they cannot prove God does not exist. Atheists who make such statements have often been accused of dogmatism. Ultimately, these critics believe that atheism, if it is to remain philosophically coherent, should keep an open mind that evidence confirming a transcendent deity could appear in the future, rather than writing off the possibility entirely.

Another line of criticism has frequently associated atheism with immorality and evil, often characterizing it as a willful and malicious repudiation of divinity. This trend, as discussed above, has a long history and is likely tied to the once-undeniable role of religion as sole source of moral instruction. The modern secularization of the world and the growing acceptance of the sciences are currently diminishing the validity of this particular critique.

Regardless of the attempts made by atheists to defend their philosophical stance and alleviate negative misunderstandings of their beliefs, atheism is still viewed rather negatively by the general public. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of two thousand households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities. Many of these respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behavior, extreme materialism, and elitism.

See also

Footnotes

  1. Julian Baggini, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, ISBN 0192804243), 17.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Ayer, A. J. “What I Believe.” Humanist 81(8) (1966): 226-228.
  • Baggini, Julian. Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0192804243
  • Berman, David. A History of Atheism in Britain: from Hobbes to Russell. London: Routledge, 1990. ISBN 0415047277
  • Berman, David. “David Hume and the Suppression of Atheism.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 21(3) (1983): 375-387.
  • Borne, Étienne. Atheism. New York, NY: Hawthorn Books, 1961.
  • Buckley, M. J. At the Origins of Modern Atheism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990. ISBN 978-0300048971
  • Cudworth, Ralph. The True Intellectual System of the Universe: The First Part, Wherein all the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is Confuted and its Impossibility Demonstrated. Reprint edition. Nabu Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1143641428
  • d'Holbach, P. H. T. 1772. Good Sense. Electronic Text at Project Gutenberg. Retrieved September 5, 2007.
  • d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). The System of Nature. Available online from Project Gutenberg:
  • de Mornay, Phillipe. A woorke concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion, written in French; Against Atheists, Epicures, Paynims, Iewes, Mahumetists. London, 1587.
  • Drachmann, A. B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago, IL: Ares Publishers, 1977 (original 1922). ISBN 0890052018
  • Everitt, Nicholas. The Non-existence of God: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2004. ISBN 0415301076
  • Flew, Antony. God and Philosophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005. ISBN 978-1591023302
  • Flew, Antony. God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1984. ISBN 0879751274
  • Flew, Antony. “The Presumption of Atheism,” in God Freedom and Immorality: A Critical Analysis. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1984.
  • Flint, Robert. Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877, 5th ed. London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1894.
  • Gaskin, J. C. A. (ed.). Varieties of Unbelief: from Epicurus to Sartre. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1989. ISBN 002340681X
  • Harbour, Daniel. An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism. London: Duckworth, 2001. ISBN 0715632299
  • James, George Alfred. "Atheism." Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mercia Eliade. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing, 1987.
  • Krueger, D. E. What is Atheism?: A Short Introduction. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1998. ISBN 1573922145
  • Le Poidevin, R. Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. London: Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0415093384
  • Levin, S. Jewish Atheism. New Humanist 110(2) (1995): 13-15.
  • Lovgren, Stefan. “Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say.” National Geographic (October 18, 2004). Retrieved September 5, 2007.
  • Lyas, Colin. “On the Coherence of Christian Atheism.” Philosophy: the Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy 45(171) (1970): 1-19.
  • Mackie, J. L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. ISBN 019824682X
  • Maritain, Jacques. The Range of Reason. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1953. Available online from The Jacques Maritain Center, University of Notre Dame. Retrieved September 5, 2007.
  • Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990. ISBN 0877229430
  • Martin, Michael, and R. Monnier (eds.). The Impossibility of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. ISBN 1591021200
  • McGrath, A. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Toronto: Doubleday, 2004. ISBN 0385500629
  • Mills, D. Atheist Universe. Xlibris, 2004. ISBN 1413434819
  • Nagel, Ernest. “A Defence of Atheism,” in A Modern Introduction to Philosophy: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources, edited by Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap, 460-472. New York, NY: Free Press, 1965.
  • Nielsen, Kai. Philosophy and Atheism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1985. ISBN 0879752890
  • Reid, J. P. “Atheism,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1000-1003. New York, NY McGraw-Hill, 1967.
  • Robinson, Richard. An Atheist's Values. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing, 1975. ISBN 978-0631159704
  • Sharpe, R.A. The Moral Case Against Religious Belief. London: SCM Press, 1997. ISBN 0334026806
  • Smith, George H. Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990. ISBN 978-0879755775
    • Excerpt: “Defining Atheism” at Positive Atheism.
  • Smith, George H. Atheism: The Case Against God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1979. ISBN 087975124X
  • Sobel, Jordan H. Logic and Theism: Arguments For and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN 0521826071
  • Stein, G. (ed.). The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief. 2 vols. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1984. ISBN 0879753072
  • "Systems of Religious and Spiritual Belief." The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. 26, 530-577. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2002.
  • Thrower, James. A Short History of Western Atheism. London: Pemberton, 1971. ISBN 0301711011
  • Vitz, Paul. Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism. Dallas, TX: Spence, 1999. ISBN 1890626120

External links

All links retrieved November 9, 2021

General Philosophy Sources

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.