This week’s question: Isn’t atheism technically a religion too? Both require faith/belief, so what’s the difference?
Many atheists say that they are sure gods do not exist. The theist objection to this surety is, sometimes, non-belief is as much an exhibition of faith as belief. After all, some say there is no evidence for or against the existence of gods. To define terms, I will use “faith” to mean “certainty for which there is no evidence.” This is an important point, because many use the word “faith” interchangeably with the word “belief,” which will here be used to mean “certainty for which there is no proof or for which there is insufficient evidence.”
The root issue behind this claim is the certainty of many atheists that gods do not exist. When I must decide whether I know or believe something, I apply to it a scale of the evidence combined with the likelihood of an occurrence. This scale is tiered: below the highest threshold, knowledge, there is belief, and below that there is knowledge of the negative. As an example, consider the possible existence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Despite the fact that the molecules that comprise a teapot could conceivably have coalesced into teapot form around the gas giant, having absolutely no evidence for this occurrence combined with the colossal unlikelihood of this occurring allows me to place it below the threshold for “knowledge of the negative” and say that I “know” that it does not exist. The same goes for gods, unicorns, leprechauns, yeti and Hogwarts. No faith required, only evaluation of evidence.
Connor Oakes is a third-year political science major.
Atheism is no more and no less than a position or a state of mind; it is either the failure to be convinced by claims that a god(s) exists, or a state of mind where one lacks belief in a god(s). A religion, on the other hand, brings up several contexts and infers particular attributes and characteristics that are often seen in most of the world’s religions. For example, we often find symbols, rituals, holy sites, sacred items, holy days and sacred texts in a variety of old religions; atheism has none of these attributes. Religions will often have creation stories — that is, short narratives that attempt to explain how the world around us came to be. Whether it be the Garden of Eden, Lord Xenu or Quetzalcoatl, every major religion has a story that tells us how we got here.
Atheism, on the other hand, relies on science for the best answers. A religion will often derive moral, ethical or religious laws from their tradition, their creation story or their scriptures and they will often preach a preferred lifestyle based on those teachings. Atheism is simply a rejection of the authority of religious claims. Often, the beliefs and ideas that atheists hold are a result of ideas and beliefs that where present prior to “deconversion.” That is, if there is an illusion that atheists think alike or hold similar values or beliefs, it might be because the beliefs and ideas needed to reject religious claims also lead them to adopt science, humanism and philosophy as the paradigm from which to view the world. The best way to describe atheism is as a movement.
David Urzua is a fifth-year philosophy major.
There seems to be a sort of social misrepresentation of the nature of belief. One could easily go into the semantics of the definition of the word, but there are more practical and obvious representations of the difference we can see in everyday life.
The fact of the matter is that truth does not demand belief. There is no social obligation to represent a belief or any degree of faith in the random, complex nature of the world. Scientists do not get together once a week to join hands to praise science and sing “Yes, gravity is real! We will believe, and we will be strong! Amen!” There would be good reason to think we were pretty insecure if this were the case.
Our knowledge of science is challenged and rewritten daily. The highest accolades in the scientific community are given to those who prove scientific beliefs we hold true to, in fact, be false. This social standard among the faithless is perhaps the best indication of the lack of a need for belief. We strive to redefine truth and discard beliefs, as opposed to adhering to tradition in spite of evidence. There exists a complete absence of faith in the mind that understands it has no purpose and no place made for it.
Cameron Moody is a second-year computational biology major.
I am one of those that doesn’t believe in an imaginary friend. (I had an imaginary friend as a child and I grew out of it.) As an atheist I have no ritual, no prayer no dogma. I only ask for evidence. Not being presented with any credible evidence I simply dismiss the claim whether it’s about an imaginary friend or a magic fruit drink purporting to have super health benefits. Perhaps Carl Sagan said it best, “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of… Read more »
I feel like this article is a solution in search of a problem.
Atheism means one thing, the negative of two default positions of belief in a supernatural moral agent/deity. Nothing more, nothing less.
Atheism has nothing to do with science, …or stamp collecting, …or baseball.
Theism is the positive default of the two positions, the one that is in the position of “burden of proof”. The absence of proof requires no “faith”, …not, …to believe in.
I want to respond to Connor Oakes and his method of looking at the evidence and the likelihood of an occurrence. The odds of a teapot orbiting Jupiter are astronomical, but i would like to know Connors thoughts about the beginning of the universe. Our universe was tuned with such precision, a tiny difference in temperature at the time of the big bang would have obviated the possibility of life as we know it. Life would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. Constants have to do with the energy of the big bang.… Read more »
[Excuse me while I snicker] You answered your own proposition. If one little thing changed at any time during the course of events then life as you know it might not exist. That’s the beauty of our existence. It is an amazing result of millions of years of circumstance. That’s what you need to comprehend. Genesis (at least the biblical book) has nothing to do with it. Look at it this way. The meeting of the gametes that your parents supplied would not have resulted in you if it had been a second earlier or a second later. You are… Read more »
“It is an amazing result of millions of years of circumstance”
When i am talking about the fundamental constants that dictate the functioning of our universe there is not millions of years to finally get those numbers right. There is only one chance at the time of the big bang, the laws of nature in our universe came at the beginning and have not changed. In one chance everything is perfect for supporting life seems like quite the coincidence…
Exactly, a big coincidence. It was what it was. One event triggered another, subsequent events triggered additional events and on and on and on. Otherwise you are proposing that all rules were in play in an instant.
So we have now after decades of big-bang denial, the co-opting of the theory to explain intelligent design? That dog don’t hunt. Because where then does the designer come from and who created it? (ad infinitum)
The laws of nature were in play in an instant. The way physics functions in the universe has not changed it has been constant. I am not sure what rules your talking about that have cascaded to our current perfection that support life. “who created it” Looking at a designer as an “it” is a strange idea, this makes it seem as though the designer is a tangible thing. The designer would not be a thing, he is the creator of things. Our universe bounds things and time, but a creator of such would be outside. The designer is one,… Read more »
Creater is wishful thinking and is not logical.
Bwaaa buzzer sounds.
You claim that there has to be a god because the universe is fine-tuned for life. However, in order to create something complex like the universe, you need a creator which is even more complex. Who fine-tuned god? Of course, you say that god just is and isn’t created. Then why can’t you just simplify the whole thing and say that the universe just is, and wasn’t created?
This goes back to looking at the start of the universe. Joe it seems that you are implying that the universe is eternal but there is absolutely a beginning. Just because there is a beginning does not mean there has to be a beginner but one must investigate the different ideas and possibilities but there is no absolute way to investigate occurrences outside our universe just speculation. But from there to look at this issue further one must look deeply into modern science as well as ancient biblical wisdom. The medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote that conflicts between science and… Read more »
Yet science keeps learning.
Exactly, and the Bible stays constant. The discoveries daily reveal wonders in the workings of our universe. The idea that scientific explanation of nature’s marvels detracts from the grandeur of creation is both absurd and ill-conceived. When understood in context the knowledge can be a source of inspiration.
You missed the point again.
But that’s ok.
I don’t see how science advancing is a conflicting idea. Why don’t you elaborate.
The bible is static and regressive. Science learns and builds on new knowledge. The bible simply promotes an outdated myth. But at least it doesn’t say that the earth is carried around the sky on the back of a turtle so I will give them that much credit. But there is still the issue with the two conflicting Genesis accounts in different orders. Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2:4-25. The first of many conflicts in the bible. Maybe I can recommend the Skeptics Annotated Bible? No sense my rehashing what is already expained. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html Let me know if you have any… Read more »
This may seem unrelated but it is directly related to that conflict.
What if I told you that the six days of Genesis were literally six 24 hour periods of time?
I’d say you were simply avoiding the conflicts in the two different versions of creation in Genesis as many christians usually do.
Then I would do something impolite like suggest that a dose of Chlorpromazine or Haloperidol might be in order.
I don’t know why the reply button disappears after a while. But i am not Christian. The Biblical calender starts at the creation of souls of humankind and not the creation of the universe, “In the beginning.” Go back and read Genesis 1 and look at the description of the events and the flow of time related to the events and then read any other part of the Bible while still concentrating on the flow of events and related flow of time. The context changes. The description of time is divided into two parts: the first six days and then… Read more »
Look reader. Start at day one. Wrong right from the gitgo. according to Genesis heaven and earth were created on the first day. Wrong. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Well ain’t that something on day one there was water? Nope. Buzzer sounds again. You aren’t seeing the forest for the preconceived notion of the trees. You also aren’t dealing with in Genesis two conflicting… Read more »
The first cause does not need to be god. All the first cause needs is the ability to bring the universe about. It need not be jealous, or have the ability to judge humanity, or create heaven and hell.
However, the idea of first cause is not necessary if the concept of time does not exist outside the universe. If there is no time without the universe, how can the universe have a beginning? It is true that the universe does not go back infinitely in time, but it need not be “created” if it is all that exists.
I agree that there is no time outside the universe and that matter only exists within the universe. But the beginning is marked by the start of time. Looking outside the universe is looking into spirituality not “things.” But something still had to happen for the universe to start whether you want to take a religious view or call it quantum fluctuations. It is easier to look at topics within the universe that can be analyzed more. What do you think about the age of the universe and the six days of genesis?
Atheism is a religion in the same way that baldness is a hair style.