Thread: A critique of Atheism

Atheism is a movement that regularly and extensively questions, analyzes, and critiques a number of the world’s held beliefs, but how often is Atheism itself examined in such a way and to such an extent? In my experience, I would say a less than proportional amount. And considering the significant role atheism plays in these forums alone, a full-out critique of it seems oddly past due. Now before I begin, I would like to say that, despite my bias regarding atheism, I am honestly going to try to be as objective as I can. I will be doing this by refraining from using opinionated, ‘loaded’, or unnecessary adjectives/comments whenever possible, and I will also be going be using operant definitions of terms to avoid semantic tangents.

Operant definition: A way of specifying, identifying, or clarifying a specific usage of a word, concept or idea.

This is handy because most every word, concept, or idea has multiple variations or definitions, and without clarifying which specific variation/definition is in question, a discussion can easily go nowhere because each side could be arguing according to different unspoken sets of assumptions about that concept.

What is Atheism?

In this specific discussion, Atheism will refer to “ the belief in the absence of God’s existence.” I would like to contrast this with the idea of “not believing in the concept of God” because the former makes a definite assertion about the existence of God, while the latter does not. They are both similar notions in the sense that neither believes in God, but atheism goes one step beyond this and makes the additional assertion that God also doesn’t exist. It’s a small detail, but an important one.

Some people feel that not believing God’s existence inherently implies the belief in God’s non-existence, but this isn’t accurate. In order to believe that something exists or does not exist, you must first assume that certain characteristics are true of the concept in question. For example, if the concept in question is Santa Claus, you cannot believe he exists (nor can you believe that he doesn’t exist) unless you assume certain characteristics of Santa (namely his omniscient-ish and omnipresent-ish nature). Without assuming specific characteristics, there just simply isn’t anything to believe or reject. If I were to ask you if you believe in the concept of Googly Schmoogly, you could not accept or reject this notion unless I gave that concept a framework of specific characteristics to accept or reject.

Now lets apply this to the concept of a God, and specifically someone in my situation. I cannot accept or reject the general notion of a God because there is no way of knowing what characteristics must be true in order for something to be considered a God. Specific religions have tried, but I don’t have good enough reason to accept any of the qualities any religion assigns to God. As a result, I cannot therefore accept or reject the concept of a God. And its not simply a matter of being torn between believing God exists and believing God doesn’t exist…someone in my position can’t even get that far because there are no definite qualities to be “torn” about either. In this sense, it is possible to not believe God exists (since there are no definite qualities to believe in) and yet not believe God doesn’t exist either (since there are no definite qualities to reject).

Where does Atheism stand as a concept?

Is Atheism a matter of science, philosophy, faith? In order to determine where Atheism fits in, we must first understand the justification behind the concept. The following are, in my experience, the most common justifications used to defend Atheism.

1.) There is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting it.

-This claim is slightly misleading. There is not overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the belief that there is no God. In fact, there is no scientific evidence regarding the existence of God at all (and that’s supposedly the point). What Atheists usually mean when they say use this justification is that “of all of evidence the scientific community has amassed, there is none of God’s existence”. The reason I make this distinction is because there is a fundamental difference between a belief that is based on actual evidence (such as a scientific theory), and a belief that is based on a lack of evidence to the contrary (such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster). In this sense, scientific evidence supports the idea of Atheism in the same way it supports the idea of the FSM. The only scientific support atheism does have is that there is no evidence of God, or in other words, there is no evidence to the contrary of atheism…but as you can see, the FSM can claim the exact same thing. And ironically enough, so can many forms of Theism,…such as those who claim that, because God is supernatural, there is no way to scientifically study God considering science is limited to the natrual/physical universe. Other than that, there is no scientific evidence confirming anything atheistic, just as there is no scientific evidence confirming the FMS or a Supernatural God. None have has, nor can have, this sort of scientific support. In short, this justification is void.

2.) It’s the only logical thing to assume.

-Again, this claim is misleading because the ‘logic’ being referred to is the same logic described in #1, and we have shown that this same logic (i.e. that no scientific evidence to the contrary scientifically justifies the belief) can also be use to support notions like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a Supernatural God. Again, the only scientific support Atheism has is that there is no scientific evidence of the existence of God, which is just another way of saying there is no scientific evidence contradicting Atheism. There also isn’t any scientific evidence contradicting the concept of the FSM, nor is there any scientific evidence contradicting the concept of a Supernatural God. But as you can see, this sort of “justification by default” is clearly flawed. Therefore this specific justification is not valid because there are several opposing concepts that are equally ‘logical’ given the specific ‘logic’ atheism utilizes. However, some Atheist would not agree with this because they refer to the issue of probability as the ‘logic’ behind their beliefs. This brings us to our next argument.

3.) Atheism is not a matter of certainty, it’s a matter of probability.

- The probability being referenced, as I understand it, is that given all of the evidence the scientific community has, and given the fact that none of it supports the existence of a God, its much more “likely” that there is no God… even though such a claim is not, and cannot, be certain or proven by science. This is probably the most sound argument atheism has. Nevertheless, it has its own shortcomings. Like most Atheist arguments, this too is very much rooted in the validity of #1, but less vitally than #2. The problem with this argument is that is ultimately makes an appeal to evidence, though admittedly in a different way than #1 or #2. The problem arises when you take a closer look at what exactly justifies the acceptance of the evidence in question. Most atheists are not scientists, and therefore have virtually no direct evidence to appeal to. Instead, and understandably so, they must appeal to claims of empirical evidence, namely the claims of the scientific community. This is fine, but there is a distinction to be made between claims of evidence and [/i]actual evidence[/i], and that distinction is in the level of credibility each has, and as a result, the extent of justification it each can yield.

The scientific method can provide actual evidence, that is, direct empirical verification of a phenomenon. And using this method, this actual evidence can be experienced by others by repeating the experiment. Doing this gives an individual actual evidence of something, but as you can already begin to see, a requisite of having actual evidence (as opposed to “claims of evidence”) is first person verification. Now suppose that a person has actual evidence of something. This person cannot “give” his evidence to anyone, at best he can claim to have evidence, and this is because he cannot share the firsthand experience with others. He has to settle for using language to attempt to share the reality of this evidence, but as you can see…it isn’t the actual evidence he is sharing (he cannot share it) it is his testimony of the evidence that he is sharing. Now, lets suppose this person (person 1) does indeed share his testimony of this evidence with another person (person 2), Person 2 can now only be said to have a testimony justifying the claim, even though the claim itself came from someone who truly did have actual evidence. It doesn’t matter because, regardless of if Person 1 has actual evidence, and regardless if person 1 was completely honest with Person 2, Person 2 can still only claim to have his testimony. Therefore, if Person 2 ends up believing the same thing Person 1 does, only Person 1 can claim to have evidence of the belief because Person 2 can only rightly claim to have a testimony as his evidence (or first-hand experience).

Now imagine science as a whole. It consists of million of people doing millions of different things over hundreds and hundreds of years. That’s a lot of firsthand experiences, and thus, a lot of actual evidence…no one is denying this. But now consider how those in the scientific community “share” this evidence…they primarily do it via testimony! Sure, experiments must be replicated before they are accepts by the community. But only a slight fraction of the scientists that make up the community do this, and as a result, only this slight fraction of the community have the same actual evidence (as opposed to testimony). It’s only understandable that this process of verification would be seriously impractical if it had to be done by every individual in the community for each and every experiment, but that’s exactly what would be needed in order for the community, as a whole, to claim to have actual evidence of the all of the findings boasted by science. In this sense, even scientist-atheists have severely insufficient evidence for the probability claim, because at least 99.9% of the evidence they are going off of isn’t actually evidence, its testimony (or other scientists).

This may seem like I’m splitting hairs, but when it comes to personal beliefs, it’s of the utmost importance. Imagine that you have a group of friends and, when you were in the bathroom, your friends see a UFO (Assume it’s a real UFO and the really saw it). They now have good reason to believe in UFOs. Suppose now that you come out of the bathroom, having not witness the fiasco, and your friends now give you their independently verified experiences of the UFO. Would you then have as good of a reason to believe in UFOs as your friends do…or even close to as good of a reason?... and if not, why? I’ll tell you why, its because there is something very significant about the first-hand experience and the justification of one’s belief. ALL atheists, as in individuals who believe God does not exist, have this belief that God does not exist… but NO atheist (scientists and laymen alike) can claim to have sufficient evidence to say “its just a matter of probability based on scientific evidence” because at least 99.9% of that evidence they are talking about is mere testimony…testimony that hasn’t been verified by at least 99.9% of the scientists who believe it! You cannot claim you are justified by way of probability without first justifying the things that make up that probability…and no atheist could ever even come close to doing this. Therefore, since the probability is unverified by way of the evidence being unverified, not individual atheist can claim this justification either.

4.) It’s science/It’s on the same level as science.

-Similar to #1, but even more inaccurate. These are people who equivocate Atheism and science and insist on using them interchangeably (such as attempting to defend atheism by defending science). We have already shown one that there is no scientific evidence that actually supports atheism, only a lack of evidence supporting its contradiction…something several opposing beliefs also have the benefit of claiming. The use of this justification is to be unaware that there is a very real difference between a scientific theory (something that is supported by actual evidence) and a philosophical theory based off the unscientific implications of absent scientific data. Making this implication is fine, but its not scientifically justified. At best its philosophically justified and this is another subtle, yet vital, distinction not usually made. Part of the problem is that, because Atheism is ‘based’ on science (notice the quotes), that it must somehow inherent some or all of the credibility and justification science is entitled to. Not true, and to put the claim “based on science” into perspective, Intelligent Design is also ‘based’ on science. Though Atheism and I.D are clearly different from one another, they are the same in at least one regard. They are ‘perversions’ of objective, neutral science in the sense that [u]both[/i] assert unscientific claims based on unscientific implications…all in the name of science.

5.) Because (insert religion or religions) contradict themselves

-Atheism is not religion-specific. It is not merely the belief that there is no Christian God (or any other religious deity), and if you think so, perhaps you shouldn’t consider yourself an Atheist. Atheism is the belief that a God, in general, does not exist. But notice how this claim cannot be invalidated by debunking specific religions…or even all religions. The concept of God goes beyond the religions often associated with it. It’s a also a philosophical notion that has no vital connection to the religions often attacked in the name of Atheism. The people who use this justification assume that, in order for God to exist, he must exist according to one or more religious interpretations…otherwise religions contradicting themselves have no real relevance to the notion of God (if God can exist as something outside of those religious interpretations, that is). This is not a valid justification either.



Given all of this, if we define faith as "belief not strongly supported by evidence or logic", then Atheism fits the bill. Not only is atheism not strongly supported by evidence, its not supported by evidence at all because there is none regarding the existence of God (and supposedly that is the evidence ). Atheism makes an implication that is not supported, warranted, or justified by the standards of science. And since the logic is based off of this same missing evidence, the logic isn't actually based on anything empirical. And even I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept 'testimony' as sufficient evidence (though it clearly doesn't compare to the first-hand experience), atheism still suffers from all of the shortcomings listed above, regardless of what label we slap on it. Faith, not faith...it doesn't really matter what you call it when you have that many holes in your argument...and thats without having to things like external world skepticism and such.

This is all I can think of at the moment. Just as an ending comment, I believe that most atheists sort of believe in each one of these ‘justifications’, and when they come together as a general way of looking at the world, atheism does seem like it has a lot going for it. But when you break down the individual justifications, there is really isn’t anything special or substantial about it under the self-righteous façade it puts up.