Is atheism a belief, but a different type of belief than religious faith? Or is it merely a lack of belief in gods, and nothing more? Let’s start with what ‘belief’ means:
- In everyday talk, ‘belief’ often means accepting a claim as true.
- In philosophy, ‘belief’ can mean any position about a claim (belief, disbelief, suspension).
- In human rights law, ‘belief’ means a nonreligious philosophical conviction.
And then what ‘atheism’ means:
- In everyday talk and philosophically, ‘atheism’ can be anything on a spectrum from passively not believing in gods, to actively believing there are no gods.
- Under human rights law, ‘atheism’ is protected as a nonreligious philosophical conviction.
How did the word ‘atheism’ evolve?
The word ‘atheism’ was not introduced to counter the word ‘theism’. It was used long before the word ‘theism’ was formally used in Western languages.
It was first used in ancient Greece, combining the prefix ‘a’ (without) and the word ‘theos’ (god), so it meant without god, or godless. Note, not without ‘a belief in god’, but without ‘god’.
Most people assumed that gods existed, and gods were the source of morality, so atheists were godless, meaning impious or immoral, and without a connection with god.
‘Atheist’ also meant being without the official gods of an area and era. This included mostly people who believed in other gods, so many ancient Romans called early Christians atheists.
Some people who didn’t believe in gods later adopted it as a description of their own philosophical position.
Today, few people use the word atheism to mean impious or immoral, or to mean believing in a different god to the traditional one.
Today, most people use the word atheism to mean any of the following:
- Weak atheism: passively not believing that any gods exist (‘I don’t believe in gods’).
- Strong atheism: actively believing that no gods exist (‘I believe there are no gods’).
- Legal context: under ‘freedom of religion or belief,’ atheism is protected as a nonreligious philosophical conviction.
The arguments for atheism not being a belief
Here are arguments some atheists use to claim that atheism is not a belief, but merely a lack of belief in gods.
- Some argue (on etymological grounds): the word ‘atheism’ comes from the word ‘atheos’, which they take to mean ‘without belief in god’. They say that is all that atheists have in common, and anything else you add to that is not part of the meaning.
- Some say: A religious person says ‘I believe in God’. I respond: ‘Prove it. If you can’t prove it, I don’t believe you. I’m not making any claims myself, I’m just rejecting yours.’
- Some say: ‘A religious person says ‘atheism is a belief, just like religion is.’ I respond: ‘I’m not saying anything about my beliefs. I’m just saying that I don’t share that one particular belief of yours.’
- Some say: ‘A religious person says atheism is a religion’. I respond: ‘Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour, or like not collecting stamps is a hobby.’
One advantage for atheists of framing atheism as ‘lack of belief’ is that it places the burden of proof on the person making the god-claim. If you merely reject their claim, you don’t owe a full alternative theory. If you assert ‘no gods exist,’ you do owe reasons.
The arguments for atheism being a belief
Here are arguments some atheists use to claim that atheism is a belief, but a more reliable belief than faith-based beliefs.
- The word ‘atheos’ does not literally mean ‘without a belief in god’. It literally means ‘without god’. Its everyday meaning has evolved over time.
- There is nothing wrong with having and defending beliefs. The problem with religious beliefs is not that they are beliefs, but that they are based on faith.
- In ordinary language, everything you think about the truth or otherwise of a proposition is a belief. Even the belief that atheism is not a belief is itself a belief.
- In practice, atheists do have more in common than a lack of belief in gods. We have many different beliefs about reality and morality, but we live our lives on the basis that our reasons and standards of justification do not come from gods. This is a necessary consequence of atheism, not merely a correlation, and it is a significant position in a world where most people believe the opposite.
One disadvantage for atheists of this type of argument is that the atheist has some onus of proof for his or her position. However, we should be confident enough of our position to defend it by applying reason to evidence.
One advantage for atheists of this type of argument is that, when applied to international human rights law, it affords the same legal protection to atheists as to religious people under freedom of religion or belief.
Where does agnosticism fit in?
Many people believe agnosticism is an ‘I-don’t-know’ midway point between theism and atheism. However, atheism and theism are about what you believe, while agnosticism is about what you claim to be able to know.
So you can be:
- A gnostic atheist (I don’t believe in gods, and also claim to know that’s true)
- An agnostic atheist (I don’t believe in gods, but don’t claim to know that’s true)
- An agnostic theist (I believe in gods, but don’t claim to know that’s true)
- A gnostic theist (I believe in gods, and also claim to know that’s true)
An agnostic strong atheist might almost 100% actively believe there are no gods, based on applying reason to the best evidence, and lead his or her life based on that belief, but not claim to know there are no gods, because we are human and might be mistaken.
Atheism under human rights law
Words can mean different things in different contexts. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, guarantee the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This is sometimes referred to as the right to freedom of religion or belief. The ‘or belief’ part refers to nonreligious philosophical convictions, which include atheism, humanism, secularism, veganism, pacifism, and others.
You have an absolute right to have, change, or reject a religion or belief. The law can limit your right to practice your religion or belief, if it is necessary in a democratic society and in pursuit of a legitimate aim.
For a ‘belief’ to be protected under human rights law, it must:
- Be genuinely held
- Relate to a weighty aspect of life
- Have a high degree of cogency/seriousness/cohesion
- Be worthy of respect in a democratic society
- Be more than a mere opinion or viewpoint
Conclusion
Ultimately, the word ‘atheism’ has a range of possible meanings, and there is no official uncontested definition. The fairest definition would be something like:
In ordinary language, ‘atheism’ is used in two common ways: (1) not believing that any gods exist, and (2) believing that no gods exist. In the context of human rights law, atheism is protected as a nonreligious philosophical conviction.
There is no advantage to atheists, holding any of these positions, arguing that ours is the only official uncontested definition. That won’t change the reality that different beliefs about the meaning of the word ‘atheism’ exist.
Whichever beliefs we hold about reality and morality, we can agree that atheism removes one obstacle to rational thinking and morality. It removes the distorting factor, based on faith and dogma, of believing that our understanding of reality is revealed by gods and that our morality is dictated by gods.
Some atheists will fall back on secular faiths and dogmas, from communism and fascism to market fundamentalism, and some will just act opportunistically for selfish reasons. But atheism does free us up to some extent to pursue truth and morality more reliably.
The goal of this article isn’t to police labels, but to clarify what people mean, so we can argue about substance instead of semantics.
We should try to be the opposite of arrogant in our beliefs. We should recognise that we might be mistaken, and we should be open to new evidence and rational arguments, including robust debate.