What Is Atheism and Can It Be Extreme?

03Apr07

Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, naturalists, brights, skeptics and most secular humanists. Common to them all is the work promoting science, logic and reason as the best tools for understanding the world and the fight against the negative effects religions have on society. There’s a rather loosely defined online community of these people (that I consider this blog part of), and they’ve been arguing since long before this blog was conceived about the meaning of the word “atheist”, whether atheists can be fundamentalists or extremists, what the right way to promote science and reason is, whether there is a term that can unify all the loosely defined groups mentioned in the first sentence and what such a term might be. This is my take.

First, let’s look at the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism” and what they might mean. “Atheism”, in popular use and many dictionaries, is the outright denial of the existence of any god, i.e. an atheist is a person who’s absolutely sure that there is no god. However, this is not how self-described atheists use the term. They use it to mean “lacking belief in god”, thereby including many who consider themselves agnostics. They support this by pointing out the etymology of the word, which stems from the greek “theos”, god, and the prefix “a-”, which means without. However, many feel that this is faulty logic. They, quite correctly, point out that the etymology of a word not necessarily denotes its current meaning. They might also point out the use of the word to mean any person that has a faith differing from the speaker’s. However, this line of thought doesn’t necessarily support the view that atheism is the positive belief in no god, because if the current usage is what defines a word, it can be convincingly argued that “atheism” has come to mean “lacking belief in a god” simply by atheists using the term in that way.

More helpful than looking at the etymology and usage of the word is to look at its semantics. All definitions deal with belief; none of them necessarily entail a knowledge of any sort. We can also point out that there are three possible answers to the question “do you believe in a god?”, yes, no and “the question is meaningless”. If theism is the first answer, for symmetry atheism could be the second, but then we lack a term for the third. Alternatively, some people have come up with the terms strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is the positive belief that there is no god, whereas weak atheism is simply the lack of belief. These terms come closer to describing what people actually believe. It follows that, if we are to use the term “atheism” without any qualifiers, we should use it to mean weak atheism, because it is the broadest (all strong atheists are necessarily weak atheists as well). It also its into the symmetry, where theism means belief in a god and atheism means the lack thereof.

Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge rather than belief. Agnostics claim not to have knowledge. They have also been associated with the stronger position that it is impossible to have knowledge about this particular thing. The term originated with Thomas Huxley, who describes it like this:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis” — had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...]

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic”. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes.

He combined the greek word “gnosis”, which means knowledge, with the “a-” prefix that means without, thereby professing his lack of knowledge about the subject. Huxley explains what he means by it:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

This is certainly compatible with weak atheism. Weak atheists do not pretend they are certain of conclusions that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. Some self-described agnostics will of course object to Huxley’s use of the word “faith” to describe agnosticism and hold that, as the first sentence proposes, it is not a faith or creed but a method. Others will once again say that the origins of a term are unimportant and insist that the current usage is the correct usage. But the current opinion is that agnosticism is a third position, a middle point on the question “do you believe in a god?” This is inconsistent with both the way Huxley used the term, and the way agnostics use it. The third option on the question “do you believe in a god?”, if there is a third option, is not “I don’t know” but rather “the question is meaningless”. Perhaps we need to find a term for those who think the question is meaningless or meaningful but impossible to know. We must conclude that “I don’t know” is a claim about knowledge, and therefore can apply to atheists and theists alike. So, agnosticism is a claim about knowledge; the other option is “I do know”, which is what many theists and some atheists claim.

I can then call myself an agnostic atheist. There are some gods that I am absolutely, positively sure do not exist, either because they’re logically impossible or because they would leave evidence. Other gods I am not so sure about, either because they would not leave evidence or because the evidence they would leave is of such a kind that it is consistent but not conclusive with the evidence we do have.

But can atheists be fundamentalists or extremists? After going through the definitions in this way, it’s clear that an atheist cannot be an “atheist fundamentalist”, because atheism comes with no doctrine or philosophy to be fundamentalist about. It’s also clear that atheism is not a religion. Perhaps it’s useful to contrast it with theism. Theism is not a religion either. It is, quite literally, the belief in a god and nothing more. There cannot be a “theist fundamentalist” either. This is why you don’t see charities in the name of atheism. Think about it: when was the last time you say a charity in the name of theism? Always, it is in the name of a specific religion. If you’re going to complain about it, at least attack a real philosophy that contains some ethics, such as secular humanism. Too bad you won’t find any of the injustices commited in the name of religion commited in the name of secular humanism.

It’s not as clear if atheists can be extremists. Vjack at Atheist Revolution certainly thinks so. He writes:

I suggest that “atheist extremism” is the term we have been seeking. It carries no requirement of adherence to a particular doctrine, and it does not imply violence. But what does it mean, and what would an atheist extremist look like?

The atheist extremist would hold views which would be considered extreme by most members of the atheist community. Like any other type of extremist, an atheist extremist would be irrational. This irrationality would be manifest through cognitive errors such as (and not limited to) the following:

• Overgeneralization – Drawing grand conclusions based on isolated examples (e.g., “Because one Christian does something bad, all Christians are bad.”).
• Dichotomous Thinking – Framing the world in terms of absolutes without acknowledging meaningful gradations (e.g., “Atheists are smart; believers are stupid.”).
• Disqualifying the Positive – Rejecting positive experiences as somehow not counting in order to preserve one’s negative view of some group (e.g., “Christians may give a lot to charity but only to promote their agenda of brainwashing.”).

While this does describe some annoying atheists, and their opinions are extreme within the loosely defined “atheist community”, is it really fair to call them “atheit extremists”? After all, their extremism is only incidental to their atheism. Whereas some religions, e.g. Islam, have a kind of “built-in” extremism where the core doctrine is itself extreme, these atheists are not extreme because of some extremism that is in the doctrine of atheism, because atheism has no doctrine. It would be like calling a carpenter “carpenter extremist” because he was both a carpenter and an extremist, ignoring the fact that his political views were the cause of the extremism and not the carpentry. But on the other hand, the carpenter isn’t pushing his extreme views on carpentry, while that is what the extreme atheists are doing. So, while it may be true that technically, an irrational atheist as described by Vjack above is an “atheist extremist”, it is misleading to call them that because their extremism is only incidental to their atheism. Christian and Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are not just incindentally extremists. Their extremism, much to the dismay of both atheists and moderate believers, has support in the core doctrine of their religions.

Perhaps it is helpful to use a rule of thumb: if you’re thinking of calling someone an “atheist X“, think about whether you would be willing to call someone a “theist X“. Since logically, both of these are devoid of any actual doctrine or teachings, they’re basically the same.

In the past, I’ve used the word “militant” to describe some atheists. I now regret this particular usage of the word. It applies better to those who go to physical attacks on their opponents, and as far as I can remember, no news about atheists physically attacking theists has been heard of. I’m also doubting whether I would be willing to call someone a “militant theist”. Perhaps, if people started gunning down atheists in the name of theism, I’d be inclined to use that term.

I promised I’d say something about the right way to spread the views that all the groups in the first sentence of this blog post share. Most of them would probably fit under my definition for atheism, but I don’t think evangelizing atheism per se is a good idea. We don’t want people to reject theism because they hate religion, but rather because they think atheism is more reasonable. We should show atheism as the logical conclusion of the employment of reason and science to the question of God’s existence, and instead of promoting atheism we should promote these tools. Atheism should only be the result of these tools. I don’t want to be associated with the dogmatists, those who choose one position over the other not because of reason and science but because of irrational faith or red herrings, and neither should we be. I’d much rather have a world full of convinced theists who do value reason and science than a world full of convinced atheists who don’t.

I’ve expressed this in some posts on this blog, and I still disagree with those who would attack any and every theist simply for their position on a single question that they incidentally share with extremists. I think their approach is a bit misguided. But I won’t fault them for trying. What I do fault some of them for, though, is their belief that it’s impossible to employ the same method as they are and still come to a different conclusion.

I don’t think “extremist” is the term we’re looking for, correct though it may technically be. Perhaps “aggressive” is the right term.

This post has been a conglomerate of thoughts. Summary: the term “atheism”, with no qualifiers, should be defined as the lack of belief in a god. The term “agnosticism”, with no qualifiers, should be defined as the lack of knowledge about some or all gods. Atheism is not a religion, and “atheist extremists” are only extremists incidentally, in the same way “theist extremists” would be. “Aggressive” might be the right term for these annoying, irrational, aggressive people, theists and atheists alike.

Some (semi-) related links: Others write about this too.

Filed under: agnosticism, atheism, religion, respect, superstition, theism   |  9 Comments