This is a modified version of a talk given to the Atheist Society in Melbourne in April 1999, and is an elaboration of a chapter on the same topic from my book Bonds of Belief. The article gives definitions of "belief" and "Atheist", discusses four distinct rationales for atheism and their associated beliefs, comments briefly on other aspects of atheism, reviews the four atheistic rationales from an agnostic point of view, presents three kinds of agnosticism, and considers different sources that people might go to in search of truth. This article was published in the Australian Rationalist No.67.
 
 

2. definitions

A belief or to believe consists of

• a mental act or condition that some idea or statement is true,
• with a range in the possible degree of commitment, eg inclined to accept it as true; firmly believe; know,
• and an implication of trust in something.

Trust is required to accept that this particular thing and not something at variance with it is true.

An Atheist is a person who believes that there is

• no God and/or
• no gods and/or
• nothing spiritual.

3. four atheistic rationales, and other matters

It is sometimes said that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Such a claim has not, as far as I know, ever been proven. Indeed, many people have become Atheists after having found what they believe to be a proof - at least to their satisfaction - of the non-existence of God. Four such rationales will now be given.

1 No Super-anthropomorphic God

There can be no omniscient omnipotent all-good all-loving God, and hence there is no God.

rationale I see evil - cruelty, suffering, slaughter and torture of innocents.

There is no evidence for the existence of any sort of god or spirit

• continually being satisfactorily explained by science,
• explained by different religions in ways that contradict each other,
• irrationally explained by the religions.

It is philosophically unsound to believe in God or spirit

There is no need to even consider the idea of God or spirit.

Sometimes paradoxes are proposed as arguments for atheism. An example is:

Morality, Meaning and Purpose

Atheists naturally reject the authority of the religions on matters of morality. But they are not without their own beliefs about right and wrong, and they may agree with many of the moral teachings of a particular religion, especially the predominant religion in their society. Also, they may note that many religious people reject some of the official teachings of their own religion and add a few moral beliefs of their own. But there is no specifically atheistic position on what constitutes right and wrong. Humanists may disagree, and might lay claim to certain modern moral positions, such as equality of the sexes and abhorrence of slavery, that were introduced against the opposition of religions.

For those Atheists who consider they need it, a sense of meaning, identity or community can be derived from secular sources, according to the personality and social situation of the individual Atheist.
 
 
 
 

4. Agnostics’ view of Atheists’ arguments

Agnostics are not Atheists. They have doubts about the beliefs of Atheists. And Atheists don’t accept the views of Agnostics, being inclined to regard them as splitting hairs.

An agnostic approach to the beliefs behind my four Atheist rationales is as follows.

1 No super anthropomorphic God

Beliefs The full definition is necessary for the concept of God.

They ask also whether our criteria of good and evil are of cosmic or transcendent significance, and also, whether a God has to comply with our concept of logic.

Alternatively, they might accept that, if there were indeed an everlasting, all powerful, loving God, and life after death for human beings, we should accept horrific things during our short term of material life in order to achieve eternal bliss, just as we now sometimes willingly endure short term pain for later gain.

2 No evidence

Agnostics may doubt whether there is a way of telling whether spirit has been demonstrated.

Agnostics, and scientists generally, don’t regard science as ultimate truth but as the best available explanations of things as we see them, and they acknowledge that new discoveries continually overturn current scientific theories.

Agnostics reject or doubt most of the claims of the religions, but this does not mean that they must necessarily also reject the possibility of there being some spiritual entity.

Agnostics dispute the logic of this intuitive atheistic position - inability to find something doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t exist.

3 Philosophically Unsound

Beliefs My philosophy (that doesn’t include God or spirit) is sound.

Agnostics do not accept that a philosophy must necessarily be true merely because it is self-consistent.

Agnostics would not discount the possibility of more than one self-consistent system of philosophy.

Occam’s razor might suggest that a monistic philosophy is superior to a dualistic, but Occam’s razor is only a useful principle rather than an infallible criterion.

Some Agnostics and philosophers might regard the atheistic (materialist) philosophy to refer to only part of a total existence that also accommodates spirit.

Agnostics note that there is no widely accepted or "mainstream" system of metaphysics, epistemology or ontology.

Agnostics regard science as nothing more than the set of explanations that seem to comply most closely with observations of natural phenomena. They note the continual discarding of explanations that had been thought to have been unequivocally confirmed by evidence.

4 Irrelevance of religion

Agnostics see no evidence that their own perceptions on matters in general are always more reliable than those of some other people who they respect, including religious people.

Agnostics think that whether "man created God in his own image" or not is irrelevant to the existence of any spiritual entity.
 
 

In none of these cases do Agnostics say to the Atheists, "You are wrong". What they do say is "You have not convinced me that you are right".
 
 

5 doubters, Believers and the source of truth

Kinds of Agnostics

While Agnostics don’t believe in Atheism, they don’t believe in any other religion either. Most people class Atheists and Agnostics together as "unbelievers". Some Agnostics would put Atheists in the class of believers, and regard themselves as the only unbelievers.

But there different kinds of Agnostics:

• Believers in unknowability, who hold that it is impossible to know anything for certain, with the possible exception that we exist and have sensory and/or mental experience.
• "Evidential" Agnostics, who believe that human beings can know only what is delivered by the senses and the constructs they derive from sensory inputs, and so are unable to tell whether there is anything beyond the material world.
• Agnostic Agnostics, who think that it may or may not be possible to know about the existence or nature of such things as God or spirit, but no evidence either way is apparent to them at the moment. (They might also think that it is paradoxical to know for certain that it is impossible to know anything for certain.)
• Unconvinced people who just don’t know what to think. This doesn’t mean that such people are a bit simple - they are just overwhelmed by the great number of claims and counterclaims of the different beliefs, and the inconclusiveness of the purported evidence.

On other matters (and some aspects of religion) Agnostics are, of necessity, also believers. From my point of view there are three types of belief about the existence of spirit. There is the belief that spirit indeed exists, which might be referred to as theism, the belief that spirit does not exist, that is, atheism, and the feeling that it is not possible to know whether spirit exists, that is, agnosticism. I see these three as being the apexes of a triangle. The Theists look across and see little difference between the Atheists and the Agnostics because neither will affirm the existence of spirit. The Atheists look across and see little difference between the Theists and the Agnostics because neither will deny the existence of spirit. And the Agnostics see little difference between the Theists and the Atheists because both believe that they know whether there is such a thing as spirit.

We all have to take most things on trust - often with a bit of misgiving. In every aspect of safety and survival it is necessary to believe that the actions we take are correct, trusting in experience, observation or whatever seems acceptable. But some people are reluctant to rely on trust in matters of religion. So really, we are all mainly believers.

Believers of all kinds - religious, atheistic and agnostic - have criteria for identifying "truth", or identifying what to put their trust in, such as:

• perceived evidence, including the word of someone else, however, people differ about what is proper evidence;
• reasoning, and we differ about what is sound reasoning;
• intuition and inner conviction, and we don’t all get the same inner feelings;
• hope, wishful thinking, and self-convincing rationales;
• combinations of the above.

And so, generally, Atheists and Agnostics don’t convince each other, nor do believers of other religions - at least, not about religion.

presumption in telling Atheists what they believe

source of title - Bonds of Belief, six pages in 350

chapter describing various kinds of religious beliefs

attempted to give equal credibility to each and will do so here

outline of what will discuss

2 definitions

definitions of belief and believe

3 kinds Of atheists

1 There is no omnipotent omniscient all-good all-loving God
(and hence there is no God)

rationale I see evil - cruelty, suffering, slaughter and torture of innocents

rationale ("negative expression of atheism")

• are continually being explained by science
• are explained by different religions in ways that contradict each other
• are irrationally explained by the religions.

rationale ("positive expression of atheism")

An omnipotent God could devise a puzzle so difficult that he couldn’t solve it. But if he couldn’t solve it he wouldn’t be omniscient.

Morality, etc

Atheists naturally reject the authority of the religions on matters of morality. But they are not without their own beliefs about right and wrong, and they may agree with many of the moral teachings of a particular religion (particularly the predominant religion in their society). Also, they may note that many religious people reject some of the official teachings of their own religions and add a few moral beliefs of their own. But there is no specifically atheistic position on what constitutes right and wrong. (Humanists may disagree).

For those Atheists who consider they need it, a sense of meaning, identity or community can be derived from secular sources, according to the personality and social situation of the individual Atheist.
 
 

4 Agnostics’ view of Atheists’ arguments

Agnostics are not Atheists. They have doubts about the beliefs of Atheists. And Atheists don’t accept the views of Agnostics.

Will look at the agnostic approach to my four rationales of Atheists.

1 Super anthropomorphic God

They ask also whether our criteria of good and evil are of cosmic significance, and also, whether a God has to comply with our concept of logic.
 
 

2 No evidence

3 Philosophical argument

Agnostics do not accept that a philosophy must necessarily be true merely because it is self-consistent.

Agnostics would not discount the possibility of more than one self-consistent system of philosophy.

Occam’s razor might suggest that a monistic philosophy is superior to a dualistic, but Occam’s razor is only a useful principle rather than an infallible criterion.

And Agnostics (and philosophers) might regard the atheistic (materialist) philosophy to be only part of a total existence that also accommodates spirit.

4 Irrelevance of religion

Agnostics see no evidence that their own perceptions on other matters are consistently more reliable than those of some other people who they respect, including religious people.

Agnostics think that whether "man created God in his own image" or not is irrelevant to the existence of any spiritual entity.

In none of these cases do Agnostics say to the Atheists, "You are wrong". What they do say is "You have not convinced me that you are right".
 
 
 
 

5 doubters, Believers and the source of truth

Kinds of Agnostics

While Agnostics don’t believe in Atheism, they don’t believe in any other religions either.

Most people class Agnostics with Atheists, as "unbelievers". Some Agnostics would put Atheists in the class of believers, and regard themselves as the only unbelievers.

But there different kinds of Agnostics:

• believers in unknowability

• agnostic Agnostics

• confused people who just don’t know what to think. This doesn’t mean that such people are a bit simple - they are just overwhelmed by the great number of claims and counterclaims of the different beliefs, and the purported evidence.

We all have to take most things on trust - sometimes with a bit of misgiving - but some people are reluctant to rely on trust in matters of religion.
 
 

Believers

So really, we are all mainly believers.

Believers of all kinds - religious, atheistic and agnostic - have criteria for identifying "truth" (or identifying what to put their trust in), such as:

• perceived evidence - including the word of someone else (and we differ about what is proper evidence);
• reasoning and we differ about what is sound reasoning;
• intuition and inner conviction and we don’t all get the same inner feelings;
• hope, or wishful thinking, and self-convincing rationales;
• combinations of the above.

We don’t all put the same weight on the value of these criteria, so we come to different beliefs, including about religion.

And so Atheists and Agnostics won’t generally convince each other, nor will believers of other religions.

And, at the end of this talk, I wonder whether I have convinced you of anything.