Atheism

Atheism, (from privative a- + theos "god") refers in its broadest sense to the absence of theism, the belief in the existence of 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 agnostics or simply non-theists. Many people who self-identify as atheists do tend to share common 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 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.

History

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 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.

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 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 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.

Reasons for atheism

Philosophical and logical reasons

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 hold that their view is merely the absence of a certain belief, the atheist claims that the burden of proof is upon the theist to prove such an unlikely phenomena, rather than on them to deny it. Furthermore, it follows that if theism's arguments can refuted, nontheism, as the only alternative, becomes the default position. As such, many atheists have argued against the most famous "proofs" of God's existence for centuries. These arguments against the existence of deities consist of a number of different problems with theism. Chief among these problems is absence of evidence supporting theistic claims. The theist must show that there are spiritual facts that must be found beyond the world of common experience, and atheists assert such facts have not been provided. Also, instead of simplification of 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. Whether all of the theistic arguments have been refuted is a matter in dispute. 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, it is more coherent to conclude that God does not exist rather than believing that he does exist but does nothing to halt the promulgation of evil.

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 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 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. 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.

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 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.

In concordance with the above lines of reasoning, studies have suggested that atheism is highly prevalent among modern scientists. 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 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.

Social and personal reasons

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 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.

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.

Types and typologies of 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 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.

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 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.

Implicit and explicit atheism

The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, construing it as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider mere absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism. Under this conceptualization of atheism, conscious rejection of theism is the key. These terms were coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). 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. Explicit atheism, meanwhile, is defined by a conscious rejection of theistic belief, and is sometimes called antitheism (see below).

File:Atheismimplicitexplicit2.PNG

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.

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).

Although Nagel rejects Smith's definition of atheism as merely "lack of theism", acknowledging only explicit "atheism" as true atheism, his tripartite classification of rejectionist atheism (commonly found in the philosophical literature) is identical to Smith's critical atheism typology. The difference between Nagel on the one hand and Smith]s on the other has been attributed to the different concerns of professional philosophers and layman proponents of atheism. Everitt (2004) makes the point that professional philosophers are more interested in the epistemological grounds for giving or withholding assent to propositions (including the existence of God) while laypersons are presumably more concerned with social reasons. So, in philosophy, atheism is commonly defined along the lines of "rejection of theistic belief", rendering Smith's the best philosophical definition of atheism. This is often misunderstood to mean only the view that there is no God, but it is conventional to distinguish between two or three main sub-types of atheism in this sense. As it happens, Smith's definition of explicit atheism is that most common among laypeople. Here, 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 "skeptic" or "agnostic" or "non-atheistic nontheism", for this position. Such usage is not exclusive to laypeople, however: atheist philosopher Theodore Drange uses 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.

Atheism as absence of theism

Among modern atheists, the view that atheism means "without theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency. This very broad definition is justified by reference to etymology as well as consistent usage of the word by atheists. Although this definition of atheism is frequently disputed, it is not a recent invention; this use has a history spanning over 230 years. Two atheist writers who are clear in defining atheism so broadly that uninformed children are counted as atheists are d'Holbach (1772) ("All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God" and George H. Smith (1979). According to Smith The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child without the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist. However, most would dispute this understanding of atheism. One atheist writer who explicitly disagrees with such a broad definition is Ernest Nagel (1965): Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist—for he is not denying any theistic claims. For Nagel atheism is the rejection of theism, not just the absence of theistic belief. However, this definition leaves open the question of what term can be used to describe those who lack theistic belief, but do not necessarily reject theism.

Ignosticism

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 positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who hold that talk of gods is literally nonsense. According to ignostics, "Does a god exist?" has the same logical truth value as "What color is Saturday?". Both question are nonsensical, and thus have no meaningful answers. Such theological statements 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 a null hypothesis. This is because the meaning of the word "god" is solely a matter of semantics to ignostics, dealing with word use and technicalities rather than with existence and reality. Further, some ignostics state that the terminology being used by theologians has not been properly or consistently defined. In Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer stated that theism, atheism and agnosticism were equally meaningless, 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 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.

Gnostic and agnostic atheism

Agnostic atheism is a fusion of atheism or nontheism with agnosticism, the 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 there may be enough 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 that deities exist.

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 is a more rarely used term, however, because often anyone who is not labeled as agnostic is assumed to be gnostic by default. Gnostic atheism also has varying meanings. When nontheism is combined with strong gnosticism, it denotes 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 not be confused with Gnosticism.

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. According to Thrower, negative atheism is understood primarily as a function of the current theism which it consistently reject. 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. 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 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 for anything 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 supernatural entities.

Antitheism

Antitheism (Anti-theism) typically refers to a direct opposition to theism. In this use, 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 views they perceive as irrational. Strong atheists who are not antitheists may believe positively that deities do not exist, but not believe that theism is directly harmful or necessitates opposition to the extent antitheists do. 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 — or perhaps even necessary — to be an antitheist without being an atheist or nontheist.

Pejorative Definitions

The first attempts to define or develop a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. These attempts were expressed in terms and in contexts that reflected the religious assumptions and prejudices of the writers. 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 speculative or contemplative 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. For the Welsh poet William Vaughan (1577 [sic]–1641) those who raised rents or enclosed commons were unequivocally atheists. Similarly, English dramatist Thomas Nashe (1567-1601) put forward that ambitious, greedy, and gluttonous, individuals, as well as such societal dregs as prostitutes, were all essentially atheists. 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. Maritain's typology of atheism (1953, Chapter 8) proved influential in Catholic circles; it was followed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (see Reid, 1967). He identified, in addition to practical atheism, pseudo-atheism and absolute atheism (and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Flew). For an atheist critique of Maritain, see Smith (1979, Chapter 1, Section 5). According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne (1961, p.10), "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."

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. 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 hatred of God, or a 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) Martin (1990, p.465-466) suggests that practical atheism would be better described as alienated theism. When denial of the existence of "speculative" atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless often 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 secularist, empiricist, agnostic, or bright is 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 (1989) have abandoned the term atheism in favor of unbelief, citing the fac that the both the derogatory associations of the term and it vagueness in the public eye rendered atheism an undesireable lablel. Despite these considerations, for others atheist has always been the preferred name. Charles Bradlaugh once said, in debate with George Jacob Holyoake, 10 March 1870, cited in Bradlaugh Bonner (1908):

Statistics

World estimates

A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%. This is similar to a 2002 survey by Adherents.com, which estimates the proportion of the world's people who are "secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists" as about 14%. A 2004 survey by the BBC in 10 countries showed the proportion of the population "who don't believe in God" varying between 0% and 44%, with an average close to 17% in the countries surveyed. About 8% of the respondents stated specifically that they consider themselves to be atheists. 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. A 2004 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that in the United States, 12% of people under 30 and 6% of people over 30 could be characterized as non-religious. A 2005 poll by AP/Ipsos surveyed ten countries. Of the developed nations, people in the United States had most certainty about the existence of god or a higher power (2% atheist, 4% agnostic), while France had the most skeptics (19% atheist, 16% agnostic). On the religion question, South Korea had the greatest percentage without a religion (41%) while Italy had the smallest (5%).

Though atheists are in the minority in most countries, individuals without religious affiliation are in the 15-20% range in developed nations in Britain, France, Australia, New Zealandand Canada. In comparison, the United States figures are generally lower. A 2005 Gallup poll showed that 5% of the US population believed that a god didn't exist. Similarly, the 2001 ARIS report found that while 29.5 million U.S. Americans (14.1%) describe themselves as "without religion", only 902,000 (0.4%) positively claim to be atheist, with another 991,000 (0.5%) professing agnosticism. According to the most recent Eurostat "Eurobarometer" poll, in 2005 18% said that "they do not believe there is a spirit, God, nor life force". Results were widely varied between different countries, with 95% of Maltese respondents stating belief, and only 16% of Estonians stating lack of belief. Several studies have found Sweden to be one of the most secular countries in the world. In the Eurostat survey, 23% of Swedish citizens responded that they did not believe in any supernatural forces. The Czech Republic seems to be the most irreligious nation, with 59% reporting no religious affiliation in the most recent survey. Japan is also highly atheistic: according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God and 55% do not believe in Buddha, however a very strong majority have engaged in some form or Shinto, Buddhist, or Japanese folk/cultural ritual, such visiting a shrine or temple on the previous New Year’s Day.

File:Europe belief in god.png

The percentage of people who believe in a God in different European countries.

Atheism is also common in former and present Communist states. According to a 2002 survey by the All-Russia Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) 32% of Russians surveyed reported themselves to be non-religious, agnostic or atheist. In China, where communism still prevails, Estimates of high degrees of atheism are most likely gross over-exaggerations (Overmyer, 2003). That said, according to Barrett et al (2001), 8% of the Chinese are atheist. According to Marshall (2000), 10% of those in China identify as “atheist.” According to Johnstone (1993), 59% of those in China are nonreligious. 68% of North Koreans are nonreligious, however, for similar reasons discussed above concerning China, this high estimate should be met with skepticism.

Another high which may seem somewhat surprising comes from the State of Israel. The 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC reported that 15% of those in Israel claimed not to believe in God. According to Yuchtman-Ya’ar (2003), 54% of Israelis identify themselves as “secular.” Dashefsky et al (2003), report that 41% of Israelis identify themselves as “not religious.” According to Kedem (1995), 31% of Israelis do not believe in God, with an additional 6% choosing “don’t know,” for a total of 37% being atheist or agnostic.

In contrast, other Middle Eastern nations are highly religious. According to Barret et al (2001) less than 1% of those in Syria, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen are secular. According to Johnstone (1993), less than 2% of Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, and Kuwait is nonreligious. According to Johnstone (1993), less than 1% of those in Iraq are nonreligious. According to Inglehart et al (2004), less than 1% of those in Jordan and Egypt do not believe in God. In many cases, Muslim faith is demanded of citizens in these countries, with atheism strictly forbidden.

Despite the high levels of atheism in China, Japan and Korea, several other Asian nations are highly religious. Less than 1% of those in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Iran, Malaysia, Nepal, Laos, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Philippines, are atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious. Not surprising, India, birthplace of numerous world religions, is also low in atheist sentiment. The 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC reports that less than 3% of Indians do not believe in God.

Atheist, agnostic and non-religious sentiments in Africa are consistently low, registering less than 1.5% in most nations across numerous surveys. According to Johnstone (1993), levels of atheism are slightly higher in of those in Congo (2.7%), Zimbabwe (4%), Namibia (4%), and Mozambique (5%) are nonreligious. South Africa registers the highest, according to a 1999 Gallup International Poll, which reported that nearly 11% of South Africans chose “none” as their religion. This may not represent a proclivity toward atheism, however, as Inglehart et al (2004) report that only 1% of South Africans do not actually believe in God.

Atheism is comparably low in Central and South America. According to Hiorth (2003), Barret et al (2001), the 1999 Gallup International Poll, and Inglehart et al (2004, 1998), less that 1-5% of those in Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Paraguay, and Venezuela are atheist, agnostic, or nonreligious. Uruguay seems to be the lone aberattion, with 12% reporting no belief in god according to Inglehart et al (2004). Mexicans share the sentiment of their southern neighbours, witht the 2004 BBC survey reporting that 7% of Mexicans do not believe in God. Other studies, such as that carried out by Inglehart et al (2004) have found this figure to be strikingly lower, reporting that only 2%.

Statistical problems

Statistics on atheism are often difficult to accurately represent for a variety of reasons. First off, survey designs may bias results due to the nature of elements such as the wording of questions and the available response options. Religious statistics are generally collected on the assumption that religion is a categorical variable. As terms such as weak atheism and strong atheism suggest, however, people vary in terms of the strength of their convictions. Additionally, many of these surveys only gauge the number of irreligious people, not the number of actual atheists, or group the two together. Further, atheism is a position compatible with other forms of religious identity such as Agnostic, Buddhist, Jains among others. Therefore, given limited poll options, some may use other terms to describe their identity, and "atheism" may be an insufficient descriptor for their beliefs. A negative perception of atheists and pressure from family and peers may also cause some atheists to disassociate themselves from atheism. For instance, some living atheistic lives may report themselves as Christian based on the doctrine known as eternal security which states that once a person is saved, they are always saved. Those with neutral attitudes are more likely to be influenced by prevailing social norms when faced with survey questions which force them to categorize themselves either as belonging to a particular religion or belonging to no religion. With such considerations in mind, instruments have been designed to measure attitudes toward religion on a continuum, including one that was used by L. L. Thurstone.

The second methodological concern is low response rates, as the majority of people do not respond to polls or surveys conducted by mail or by phone (Brehm, 1993). A response rate of around 50% is considered satisfactory/adequate, and anything over 70% is considered excellent (Babbie, 1989). Surveys with response rates of lower than 50% may provide accurate information concerning the minority of self-selecting people responding, but they cannot be generalized to the wider society. A closely related problem is that of non-random samples. Even with a high response rate, if the sample is not randomly selected – wherein every member of the given population has an equal chance of being chosen — it is non-generalizable. The aforementioned low response rates severely hamper the randominity, and therefore the generalizability, of the data.

Finally, the political or cultural climate of a given country can affect the numbers of atheists who report. In a totalitarian country where atheism is upheld by the government with serious risks present for citizens viewed as disloyal (e.g., Communist dictatorships such as China or North Korea), individuals will be reluctant to admit that they actually do believe in God, raising reported numbers of atheists. Conversely, in a society where religion is heavily enforced by the government and serious risks are present for those who chose not to believe (e.g., Muslim regimes such as Saudi Arabia or Iran), individuals will be hesitant to admit that they actually don’t believe in Allah, regardless of whether or not anonymity is guaranteed.

Religion and atheism

Ancient Greek and Roman

Socrates

The oldest known expressions of atheism as we now understand it are attributed to Epicurus around 300 B.C.E. The aim of the Epicureans was mainly to attain peace of mind by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. One of the most eloquent expression of Epicurean thought is Lucretius' On the Nature of Things (1st century B.C.E.). Lucretius was not an atheist as he did believe in the existence of gods, and Epicurus was ambiguous on this topic too. However both of them certainly thought that if gods existed they were uninterested in human existence. Both of them also denied the existence of an afterlife. Perhaps they are 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. The movement remained marginal, and gradually died out at the end of the Roman Empire.

Despite the popularity of polytheism in ancient Greece, numerous criticisms were lodged against such belief. Xenophanes claimed that anthropomorphic and often immoral portrayals of the gods were merely projections of humanity upon the divine, and suggested one, unchangable god to replace these 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. The Sophists criticized the gods as a product of human society and imagination to the extent that Protagoras, who actually espoused an agnostic view, 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 bolster and reify societal code of morality. Theodoret of Cyrrhus was the first in the Greek tradition to explicitly deny all forms of theism and the existence of any type of god.

In western Classical Antiquity, theism was the fundamental belief that supported the divine right of the State. Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity 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' ("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 prosecuted as atheists. Thus, charges of atheism, meaning the subversion of religion, were often used similarly to charges of heresy and impiety — as a political tool to eliminate diversity in religion. During the late Roman Empire, atheism — a capital crime — was a common legal prosecution against Christians by henotheists. Christians rejected the Roman gods, and henotheists rejected the exclusivity of Christian monotheism.

Judaism

Belief in god is an indispensible requirement in Jewish principles of faith, which is evident within Judaism's paramount prayer, the Shema which asserts the monotheistic nature of god. However, some strains of atheism have nonetheless originated out of the Judaic faith. One stream atheism emerged in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Richard Rubinstein, a Conservative rabbi who spendt three years of his youth imprisoned at Auschwitz, put forward the claim that God died at Auschwitz. God's failure to save the Jews, according to Rubenstein, marked a severance in the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Hence, the Jews were 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 disappearance. 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 today.

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. Reconstructionism is not dogmatic in many of its articles of faith, and does not require belief in a deity. 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. Rather, they 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 burn away false images of God, thus in the end serving the purpose of true monotheism. It is also worth noting that certain popular Reform prayer books, such as Gates of Prayer, offer some services without mention of God.

Christianity

By necessity, 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,"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" This 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 disbelief. Regardless, atheism has still been found occassionally throughout the history of Christianity. Gnostic literature, which predates some of the gospel records, commonly put forward the idea that the physical world is an improper 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, 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 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 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 and was alive. Atheism typically entails a lack of belief that any gods ever existed, as opposed to not existing currently. For further discussion, see Lyas (1970).

It should be noted that although Christianity as a faith has to be construed as irreconcilable with atheism, this is markedly not the case regarding the church institutions which currently are nominally Christian. Indeed the great 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. Liberal Christian atheists who follow the teaching of Jesus, but who may not believe in the literal existence of God. In this case, however, many would dispute whether the atheists in question are truly Christians, though they certainly are by some of the looser definitions of the word.

Islam

In Islam, atheists are categorized as kafir (كافر), a term that is also used to describe polytheists, and that translates roughly as "denier" or "concealer". The noun kafir carries connotations of blasphemy and disconnection from the Islamic community. In Arabic, "atheism" is generally translated ilhad (إلحاد), although this also means "heresy". The Quran is silent on the punishment for apostasy, though not 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. Atheists in Islamic countries and communities frequently conceal their non-belief. The surveys mentioned above that indicate 100% religious belief in certain Islamic countries should be interpreted in light of this fact.

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 schools, only two which can be considered a distinctly orthodox (astika) Hindu school of thought due to its affirmation the accuracy of the Vedas is Samkhya. Unlike other astika schools, Samkhya lacks the notion of a 'higher being' that is the ground of all existence. Instead, Sankhya proposes a thoroughly dualistic understanding of the Cosmos, in which two parallel realities Purusha, and the spiritual and Prakriti, the physical coexist. The aim of life is the attainment of liberating Self-knowledge of the Purusha. Here, no God (better stated theos) is present, yet Ultimate Reality in the form of the Purusha exists. Therefore, Sankhya 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 more outwardly rejected theistic conceptions of the cosmos than Samkhya. 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 arguments for the existence of God. Purva Mimamsa school attacked these arguments 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 important on the level of everyday understanding. However, on the level of transcendent religious knowledge, the concept of God was seen to be ultimately illusory.

As well, the three heterodox schools, 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, Charvaka (also Charvaka) lasted 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 affirmation of only the physical was a pervasive disbelief in God.

Jainism

The other heterodox school in Indian thought which can be described as genuinely atheistic is that of the Jains. 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, havig 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 and subject to change, then the god who theists claim created it is supposedly prone to a state of flux, as well. Also, Jains note the question as to the motive of this cosmic being that supposedly created the world. If this creation was performed for the purposes of some sense of need within god, then it follows that god created due to lack of something, which mitigates His 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 to their founder can hardly be considered worship of a god.

Buddhism

While Buddhism is not as outwardly atheistic as the other heterodox schools in Indian philosophy, early texts suggest that theistic ideals 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 denied 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 have logically been created at once. Since the world is constantly spawning new forms, 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 pratitua-samutpada, everything is dependent on something else in order to come into existence without exception. This precludes the possibility of an original cause without cause. Like the Jains, Buddhists also question gods motivation for creating 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 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 their eventual Buddhahood. 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 and of Vedic priests, and the power of the rituals of Vedic religion. 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 in some Buddhist schools that spiritual beings exist, Buddhism should only be considered somewhat atheistic.

Confucianism

In the Chinese classics from the Shang Dynasty (1750-1100 B.C.E.) frequent references aremade 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. 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 which governs the heavens. Mo-tzu (468-390) 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 purely 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.

Daoism

The Tao, literally translated as "way" or "road", represents the normative ontological and ethical standard by which the entire universe is constructed. According to Lao-Tzu, author of the Tao-te-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 other wise, however, accepting the concept of the Dao 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

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. Indeed, there are many modern movements which do not believe in god which 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 which does not believe in God or other things supernatural, but nonetheless thinks that churches 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.

Another group of religious systems which should be included in this discussion of atheism are those which conceive of God as a "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 Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, who described God as the ground of being and made the statement that "God does not exist", which caused some to label him 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 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

Atheists and atheism have received much criticism, opposition, and persecution, chiefly from theistic sources, throughout human history. These have ranged from mere philosophical contempt to full-fledge persecution, as in the case of medieval polemics and later Hitler's call for extermination of all atheists. 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 to 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 a denial have often been accused of dogmatism. These critics beleive that atheism, if it is to remain philosophically coherent, should keep an open mind that such evidence confirming a transcendent deity could appear in the future, rather than precluding the possibility entirely. This view is known as fallibilistic atheism.

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 generally caused the term to lose 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 lack of morality in many acts inspired by religion throughout history.

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 than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups. Many of the respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour, extreme materialism, and elitism.

See also

• agnosticism
• deism
• humanism
• nihilism
• objectivism
• panentheism
• pantheism
• rationalism
• secular humanism
• secularism
• theism

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Altizer, Thomas J.J. The Gospel of Christian Atheism. London: Collins, 1967. Electronic Text
• Armstrong, Karen. A History of God. London: Vintage, 1999 ISBN 0099273675
• Ayer, A. J. What I Believe. in Humanist, Vol 81 (8) p.226-228. 1966.
• Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1989.
• Baggini, Julian. Atheism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ISBN 0192804243.
• Barrett, David, George Kurian, and Todd Johnson. World Christian Encyclopedia. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001.
• 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. in Journal of the History of Philosophy, Vol. 21 (3), p.375-387. 1983.
• 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.
• 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]
• Bradlaugh Bonner, Hypatia. Charles Bradlaugh: a record of his life and work. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1908.
• Buckley, M. J. At the origins of modern atheism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987.
• 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.
• d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1772). Good Sense. Electronic Text
• d'Holbach, P. H. T. (1770). The system of nature. Electronic versions:
  • complete text (pdf)
  • complete text (html)
• Dashefsky, Arnold, Bernard Lazerwitz, and Ephraim Tabory. “A Journey of the ‘ Straight Way’ or the ‘Roundabout Path’:Jewish Identity in the United States and Israel.” Pages 240-260 in Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, edited by Michele Dillon, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2003.
• 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: Ares Publishers, 1977. ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition"). ISBN 0890052018.
• Everitt, Nicholas. The Non-existence of God: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 2004. ISBN 0415301076.
• Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say
• Eungi, Kim. “Religion in Contemporary Korea: Change and Continuity.” Korea Focus, July-August, 133-146. 2003.
• Flew, Antony. God and Philosophy. London: Hutchinson & Co, 1966.
• Flew, Antony. God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984. ISBN 0879751274.
• Flew, Antony. The Presumption of Atheism. New York: Prometheus, 1984.
  • complete text (html)
• Flew, Antony. The Presumption of Atheism. in Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 2, p.29-46. 1972.
• Flint, Robert Anti-Theistic Theories: Being the Baird Lecture for 1877, 5th ed, London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1894.
• Gallup, George and Michael Lindsay. Surveying the Religious Landscape. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 1999.
• Gaskin, J.C.A. (ed). Varieties of Unbelief: from Epicurus to Sartre. New York: Macmillan, 1989. ISBN 002340681X.
• Harbour, Daniel. An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism. London: Duckworth, 2001. ISBN 0715632299.
• Hiorth. Finngeir. Atheism in the World. Oslo, Norway: Human-Etosk Forbund, 2003.
• Hitchens, Christopher. Letters to a Young Contrarian. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
• Inglehart, Ronald, Miguel Basanez, Jaime Diez-Medrano, Loek Halman, and Ruud Luijkx. Human Beliefs and Values: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook Based on the 1999-2002 Value Surveys. Beunos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 2001.
• James, George Alfred. "Atheism." Encyclopedia of Religion, Mercia Eliade, ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1987.
• Johnstone, Patrick. Operation World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.
• Krueger, D. E. What is atheism?: A short introduction. New York: 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. in New Humanist, Vol 110 (2), p.13-15. 1995.
• 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.
• 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. Electronic Text
  • Note: Chapter 8, The Meaning of Contemporary Atheism (p.103-117, Electronic Text) is reprinted from Review of Politics, Vol. 11 (3) July 1949, p. 267-280 Electronic Text. A version also appears The Listener, Vol. 43 No.1102, 9 March 1950. pp.427-429,432.
• Martin, Michael. Atheism: A philosophical justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1990. ISBN 0877229430.
• Martin, Michael, & Monnier, R. (Eds.). The impossibility of God. New York: Prometheus, 2003.
• McGrath, A. The Twilight of Atheism : The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Toronto: Doubleday, 2004. ISBN 0385500629
• McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis. The Nature of Existence. Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927.
• McTaggart, John & McTaggart, Ellis. Some Dogmas of Religion. London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1930. [new edition; First published 1906]
• Mills, D. Atheist Universe. Xlibris, 2004. ISBN 1413434819.
• Müller, F. Max. Natural Religion: The Gifford Lectures, 1888. London: Longmans, Green and Co, 1889.
• 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.
• Nielsen, Kai. Philosophy and Atheism. New York: Prometheus, 1985. ISBN 0879752890.
• 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.
• Rizzuto, Ana-Maria. Why did Freud reject God?: A psychoanalytic interpretation. Yale University Press, 1998. ISBN 0300075251.
• 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.
  • Excerpt: Defining atheism (html)
• Smith, George H. Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus, 1979. ISBN 087975124X.
  • 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.
• Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns." <http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html> [Accessed 6 July 2006].

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:

• Atheism  ^history
• History_of_atheism  ^history

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

• History of "Atheism"

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