The rationality of atheism

<The following is a portion of Larrys Text, further expansion of this section is greatly encouraged>

If one is an atheist who desires to hold onto one's atheism rationally, one would appear to need some arguments that God does not exist. Many theists maintain that it would not do simply to refute arguments that God exists. That would--many theists maintain--only show that there was no good philosophical reason to believe that God exists. It would not show that there was good reason specifically to believe that God does not exist.

This is particularly true of reformed epistemologists who maintain that an individual can have non-philosophical reasons for believing in the existence of God. For example, Alvin Plantinga argues that his belief in God is "properly basic" because it rests on experience in much the same way as his belief that he had eggs for breakfast this morning. This view is sometimes misconstrued as a claim that basic beliefs are irrefutable, but Plantinga reminds his readers that there are circumstances in which he could be convinced that he did not really have eggs for breakfast this morning. Thus for Plantinga, theists who've had decisive religious experiences ought not give up their beliefs unless they are presented with significant "defeaters" by atheists.

Some theists might go farther and claim: you can't prove that God does not exist, because you can't prove a negative; so atheism requires just as much faith as theism does; so at least you should be agnostic. This is obviously subject to a counterargument based on Occam's Razor--if there truly is no reason at all to suppose something exists, then chances are it doesn't. However, that cannot be the final word, because most theists claim that they have some evidence for their position.

Modern atheists take these arguments in stride. In the first instance - that the atheist would appear to need arguments for the non-existence of God - the modern atheist takes existence arguments as the weakest of all objections to atheism. After all, the burden of proof is on those making an assertion, and the assertion in this case is the one made by theists - that a god does in fact exist. This is a parallel to the justice system, in which guilt must be proved but innocence cannot be - it can only be presumed. Thus, the modern atheist sees the allegations of God's existence as a charge which must be proved, and the testimony of "religious experience" as hearsay evidence.

Related to this is the theist's argument that since one cannot prove a negative, atheism is therefore based on faith. The modern atheist sees this as only slightly more sophisticated than the existence argument. He also sees it as the place where theistic arguments begin to fall into a muddle. In existence arguments, the theist claims that "religious experience" is proof positive enough for the believer of the existence of God. However, the negative-proof argument asserts that the theist has no proof of God's existence because belief requires faith. The atheist's response, then, is, "You can't have it both ways. Which do you require: proof or faith?" (This is quite beyond the simple response that it is entirely possible to prove negatives: I can quite certainly prove that the die did not land on 6.)

Atheism is no more concerned with disproving God than religion is with proving him. Atheism is a way of life which rejects superstition and supernaturalism in favor of rationalism and naturalism. Religions are many and varied, but their one commonality is supernaturalism. It is the mark by which theists and atheists alike can identify just what is a religion and what is not. Atheism, therefore, is not a religion.

Modern atheism, just like religions, is concerned with morality and ethics. Modern atheism considers religion to be an immoral choice of lifestyle. Its objections vary in detail from religion to religion. Buddha, for example, abandoned his wife and family for his selfish pursuit of Nirvana. Christianity is based on human sacrifice. Islam means submission. Atheism rejects the idea that morality is handed down to man from a supernatural moralist; rather, it sees morality as arising out of social interactions. The atheist finds the escape from responsibility which is fostered by many religions to be morally unacceptable. For example, the atheist believes it immoral for one man to be brutally murdered for the sins of another, or that all one need do is confess his sins for them to be absolved, or that all one need do is believe and obey in order to gain entrance to a post-mortem fairyland. The atheist finds religions to promote fear, guilt, irrationality, and irresponsibility (let alone wars and persecution). Though specifics will vary with the individual atheist, the common rationales that tie them together, then, are rationalism, naturalism, and responsibility.

See also The problem of evil and Faith and rationality.

/Talk