Criticism of atheism
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
Criticism of atheism has occurred throughout the history of religion. Atheism chiefly receives opposition from theistic sources, though some forms of atheism also receive criticism from nontheistic sources. There are several specific kinds of arguments which are commonly used against people who call themselves atheists.
Contents |
Atheism is wrong because God exists
The most direct arguments against atheism are those in favor of the existence of deities, which would imply that atheism is simply untrue and that atheists are either unable or unwilling to recognize the existence of a god or gods (see existence of God).
Atheism is incoherent
Some hold the view that atheism is meaningless, a belief that can either be the polar opposite of ignosticism (the view that theism is incoherent), or an actual aspect of ignosticism, as many ignostics reject the label atheist on the basis that it is just as nonsensical as theist is.
Others consider atheism incoherent when accompanied by other beliefs, due to logical contradiction. Alvin Plantinga, a contemporary Christian apologist, argued that atheism is incompatible with belief in evolution, on the basis that evolution, combined with naturalism, implies that our epistemological systems will simply be "designed" to keep us alive (see intelligent design). In other words, evolution would have no reason to "assign" us true beliefs if other beliefs would keep us alive. He concludes that we can either accept evolution as true, or accept naturalism as true, and that the acceptance of both leads to incoherence and self-contradiction. His arguments closely resemble Edmund Husserl's arguments against psychologism in logic. Critics often respond that this argument ignores the fact that things have capabilities other than their primary "designed" capabilities: feathers meant for warmth proved capable of flight, human minds that in general are sufficient for survival through generalized capabilities have numerous capabilities not necessarily designed for. Further, mate selection preferences can produce nonsurvival characteristics, such as colorful peacock tails, or (in the case of humans) mental abilities. Moreover, Plantinga's understanding of evolution is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution, in fact, does not "design" and species do not evolve toward an ultimate goal.
Atheism does not exist
One popular claim among some theists in the past has been that all people must naturally, inherently believe in a deity. Thus, atheism cannot be a true statement of belief, but is simply a form of denial. With atheism defined out of existence, atheists must necessarily be deluding themselves rather than honestly disbelieving.
The typical response to this has been to demand evidence that people who claim not to be theists are secretly theists, as anyone could make such a claim about anything, attempting to support a point by arguing that everyone already agrees with you without knowing it.
However, an even simpler rebuttal to the argument that atheism doesn't exist is that the same argument could be made that theism doesn't exist. In other words, one can just as easily say that all people naturally, inherently, do not hold any beliefs in deities, but, rather, are simply taught such beliefs. Therefore, theism cannot be a true statement of belief, but is simply a form of denial. With theism defined out of existence, theists must necessarily be deluding themselves rather than honestly believing.
Atheism leads to poor morals and ethics
Many world religions teach that morality is derived from the dictates or commandments of a particular deity, and that acknowledgment of God or the gods is a major factor in motivating people towards moral behavior. Consequently, atheists have frequently been accused of being amoral or immoral. For example, for many years in the United States, atheists were not allowed to testify in court because it was believed that an atheist would have no reason to tell the truth, without the fear of God motivating them to be honest.
Atheists almost uniformly reject this view and assert that they are as or more motivated towards moral behavior as anyone, citing a range of non-theistic sources of moral behavior, including: their upbringing; natural empathy, compassion and a human concern for others; respect for order, society, and law; and a desire for a good reputation and self-esteem. In addition, while atheism does not entail any particular moral philosophy, many atheists are drawn towards views like secular humanism, empiricism, objectivism, or utilitarianism, which provide a moral framework that is not founded on faith in deities.
Many atheists have also argued that no religious basis is necessary for one to live an ethical life. [1] They assert that truly ethical behavior would come from altruistic motivation, not from fear of punishment or hope of reward after death. Further, they cite the fact that, within many religions, the concept of morality is presented as a list of prohibitions; thou shall not statements, compiled as a check against one's actions. They assert that abiding by a list of prohibitions is not sufficient for genuinely ethical behavior, and that morality should be positive rather than negative; What should I do? rather than What shouldn't I do?.
Those who are unhappy with the negative orientation of traditional religious ethics believe that prohibitions can only set the absolute limits of what a society is willing to tolerate from people at their worst, not guide them towards achieving their best. In other words, someone who follows all these prohibitions has just barely avoided being a criminal, not acted as a positive influence on the world. They conclude that rational ethics can lead to a fully expressed ethical life, while religious prohibitions are insufficient. In response, theists often point out that this negativity is a feature of certain religious traditions and not others, and that there are positive guidelines in some.
Many atheists, however — and some theists — do not believe that theism, or lack of it, has any pronounced effect on whether a person behaves morally or not. Other atheists counter that religion, rather than atheism, is a source of immorality. Francis Bacon writes: "Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." [2]
The underlying notion here is that religious ethical systems emphasize obedience over goodness. Bacon and others feel that, due to their alleged supernatural support, these systems are inherently authoritarian, hence able to endorse immorality as easily as morality while discouraging individuals from responsibly evaluating the rightness of their actions. In support of this, atheists can bring up a long list of horrors done with religious support. Defenders of religious ethics usually respond by characterizing the many cases of immorality in the name of religion as being an aberration based on radical or even extremist interpretations of religious scripture, and point out all the good things that religion can claim credit for, such as acts of charity. Atheists tend to regard this as special pleading.
Some theists have also argued that atheism promotes immorality based on examples of atheists who are widely considered to be oppressive and brutal rulers, particularly Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. However, atheists have countered that the existence of unethical people who have a certain belief system (or a lack of a certain belief system) does not indicate that the belief system itself is unethical. In addition, an argument that alleges atheism is false because it leads to poor morals would be a form of appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy – even if atheism was indeed related to immorality, it would not imply that an atheist belief system is factually incorrect.
Atheism requires as much or more faith than belief in a god does
The claim that atheism requires as much faith or as many unmerited assumptions as theism is a common theist argument leveled against atheists of all stripes. It is also sometimes used as an argument against strong atheism by weak atheists and agnostics.
At times, this argument consists of laying the burden of proof on atheism, or on both atheism and theism. However, laying the burden of proof on atheism may be unrealistic, as, while it might be theoretically possible to one day find reasonably persuasive evidence of the existence of a deity (though strong agnostics disagree), it seems unlikely that atheism could ever find evidence of a "not-god" anywhere. As such, arguments for atheism consist primarily of arguments against theism, which is in keeping with claims that atheism is only the lack of a belief rather than a belief itself. Some atheists argue that, since they see the burden of proof as being upon theism, they are under no obligation to offer arguments that seek to actively disprove theism. Instead, atheism is the default position that they feel ought to be held unless and until that burden of proof is shouldered.
One atheistic response is to emphasize that atheism is a rejection or lack of belief, not a belief in itself. This argument is often summarized by reference to Don Hirschberg's famous saying, "calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." [3] A related argument is to point out that adherents of any one particular faith are also atheists with regard to all other religions. Thus, a reductio ad absurdum attaches—believers of one faith are also "atheist believers" of every other religion in existence.
Another atheistic response to this argument is to state that the word "faith" in this context, as asserted with respect to theist "belief" verses atheist "belief," means something very different in the two contexts. Faith can mean 'complete confidence in a person or plan, etc.' Faith can also mean 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'. When a theist speaks of his faith, it is argued, he refers to the latter definitions. When he wishes to assert that "atheists have faith, too", the only definition that fits is the first, but his argument implies the latter definitions, nonetheless. Just because the English language uses the same word to denote both meanings is not license to use those meanings interchangeably.
Atheists are a minority
By a wide margin, most people in the world believe in God (see statistics on Atheism). However, concluding from this that atheism is wrong is a logical fallacy, a form of argumentum ad populum.
Atheism and Politics
It is indisputable that more death and suffering has been caused by atheists in the last one hundred years (Stalin, Beria, Mao, Pol Pot etc.) than has been caused by religion in several millennia. Furthermore, the influence of the atheist philosopher and opponent of Christianity Nietzsche was strong on the National Socialist movement (though the latter should be characterised as a form of neo-paganism rather than atheism). Defenders of the atheists Marx and Nietzsche argue that their purported followers misinterpreted them (though defenders of Christianity could equally argue along similar lines with regard to e.g. the Inquisition).
See also:
