Atheism

== Definition ==
Writers disagree on how best to define and classify ''atheism'',<ref name="eb1911-atheism">{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Atheism | quote = The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous. Its meaning varies (a) according to the various definitions of deity, and especially (b) according as it is (i.) deliberately adopted by a thinker as a description of his own theological standpoint, or (ii.) applied by one set of thinkers to their opponents. As to (a), it is obvious that atheism from the standpoint of the Christian is a very different conception as compared with atheism as understood by a Deist, a Positivist, a follower of Euhemerus or Herbert Spencer, or a Buddhist.}}</ref> contesting what supernatural entities are considered gods, whether atheism is a philosophical position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. However the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism.<ref>{{cite web |author = [[Paul Draper (philosopher)|Paul Draper]] |quote = Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that "atheism" shouldn't be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, "atheism" should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God |title = Atheism and Agnosticism |publisher = [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |access-date = October 24, 2021 |url = https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism |archive-date = October 25, 2021 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20211025062002/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ |url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=McCormick |first1=Matt |title=Atheism |quote=It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God |publisher=[[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |access-date=October 24, 2021 |url=https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1 |archive-date=February 21, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100221061729/https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence |publisher = [[Philosophy Now]] |title = Where's The Evidence |author = Michael Anthony |quote = While the word 'atheism' has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew's article 'The Presumption of Atheism'), it is a highly non-standard use. |access-date = October 24, 2021 |archive-date = September 26, 2019 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190926013024/https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence |url-status = live }}</ref>

Atheism has been regarded as compatible with [[agnosticism]],<ref name="agnosticism-compatible" /><ref name="encyc-unbelief-compatible">{{cite book |last=Holland |first=Aaron |title=Agnosticism |date=April 1882 |publisher=The Journal of Speculative Philosophy |url=https://archive.org/details/jstor-25667906 |postscript=,}} in {{harvnb|Flynn|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=YR4RAQAAIAAJ&q=%22It+is+important+to+note+that+this+interpretation+of+agnosticism%22 34]}}: "It is important to note that this interpretation of agnosticism is compatible with theism or atheism, since it is only asserted that ''knowledge'' of God's existence is unattainable."</ref><ref name="martin-agnosticism-entails" /><ref name="barker-agnostic-atheism" /> but has also been contrasted with it.<ref name="eb2011-atheism-critique">{{harvnb|Nielsen|2013}}: "atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."</ref><ref name="eb2011concise-atheism">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Atheism |url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/atheism?show=0&t=1323944845 |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica Concise |publisher=Merriam Webster |access-date=December 15, 2011 |quote=Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121050128/http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/atheism?show=0&t=1323944845 |archive-date=January 21, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="eb1911-atheism-sceptical">{{cite EB1911 |wstitle=Atheism | quote = But dogmatic atheism is rare compared with the sceptical type, which is identical with agnosticism in so far as it denies the capacity of the mind of man to form any conception of God, but is different from it in so far as the agnostic merely holds his judgment in suspense, though, in practice, agnosticism is apt to result in an attitude towards religion which is hardly distinguishable from a passive and unaggressive atheism.}}</ref>

=== Implicit vs. explicit ===

{{Main|Implicit and explicit atheism}}

[[File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg|thumb|A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of [[Weak and strong atheism|weak/strong]] and [[Implicit and explicit atheism|implicit/explicit]] atheism.
<br />
Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in {{Font color|purple|'''purple'''}} on the '''right''') assert that ''"at least one deity exists"'' is a false statement.
<br />
Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in {{Font color|blue|'''blue'''}} on the '''right''') reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that ''"at least one deity exists"'' is a false statement.
<br />
Implicit weak/negative atheists (in {{Font color|blue|'''blue'''}} on the '''left'''), according to authors such as George H. Smith, would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity but have not explicitly rejected such belief.
<br />
(Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)]]
Some of the ambiguity involved in defining ''atheism'' arises from the definitions of words like ''deity'' and ''god''. The variety of wildly different [[conceptions of God]] and deities lead to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the [[paganism|pagan]] deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as ''theism'' came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.{{sfn|Martin|2006}} With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any [[spirituality|spiritual]], [[supernatural]], or [[Transcendence (religion)|transcendental]] concepts.<ref name="eb2011-Rejection-of-all-religious-beliefs" />
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has been defined as the absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, [[Baron d'Holbach]] said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."<ref>{{cite book |last=d'Holbach |first=P.H.T. |author-link=Baron d'Holbach |title=Good Sense |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7319 |year=1772 |access-date=April 7, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110623131908/http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7319 |archive-date=June 23, 2011 |url-status=live}}</ref> Similarly, [[George H. Smith]] suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|1979|p=14}}.</ref>

''Implicit atheism'' is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and ''explicit atheism'' is the conscious rejection of belief. It is usual to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism.<ref>{{cite web |author=[[Paul Draper (philosopher)|Paul Draper]] |quote=Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that "atheism" shouldn't be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, "atheism" should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God |title=Atheism and Agnosticism |publisher=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |access-date=October 24, 2021 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism |archive-date=October 25, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211025062002/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=McCormick |first1=Matt |title=Atheism |quote=It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God |publisher=[[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |access-date=October 24, 2021 |url=https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1 |archive-date=February 21, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100221061729/https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#H1 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence |publisher=[[Philosophy Now]] |title=Where's The Evidence |author=Michael Anthony |quote = While the word 'atheism' has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew's article 'The Presumption of Atheism'), it is a highly non-standard use. |access-date=October 24, 2021 |archive-date=September 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190926013024/https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence |url-status=live}}</ref>

For the purposes of his paper on "philosophical atheism", [[Ernest Nagel]] contested including the mere absence of theistic belief as a type of atheism.<ref name= Nagel1959>{{cite book |title=Basic Beliefs: The Religious Philosophies of Mankind |chapter=Philosophical Concepts of Atheism |first=Ernest |last=Nagel |author-link=Ernest Nagel |year=1959 |publisher=Sheridan House |quote=I must begin by stating what sense I am attaching to the word 'atheism,' and how I am construing the theme of this paper. I shall understand by 'atheism' a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism.&nbsp;... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject.&nbsp;... I propose to examine some ''philosophic'' concepts of atheism}}
<br />reprinted in ''Critiques of God'', edited by Peter A. Angeles, Prometheus Books, 1997.</ref> [[Graham Oppy]] classifies as ''innocents'' those who never considered the question because they lack any understanding of what a god is, for example one-month-old babies.{{sfn|Oppy|2018|p=4|ps=: Agnostics are distinguished from innocents, who also neither believe that there are gods nor believe that there are no gods, by the fact that they have given consideration to the question of whether there are gods. Innocents are those who have never considered the question of whether there are gods. Typically, innocents have never considered the question of whether there are gods because they are not able to consider that question. How could that be? Well, in order to consider the question of whether there are gods, one must understand what it would mean for something to be a god. That is, one needs to have the concept of a god. Those who lack the concept of a god are not able to entertain the thought that there are gods. Consider, for example, one-month-old babies. It is very plausible that one-month-old babies lack the concept of a god. So it is very plausible that one-month-old babies are innocents. Other plausible cases of innocents include chimpanzees, human beings who have suffered severe traumatic brain injuries, and human beings with advanced dementia}}

=== Positive vs. negative ===
{{Main|Negative and positive atheism}}
Philosophers such as [[Antony Flew]]<ref name="presumption">{{harvnb|Flew|1976|pp=14ff}}: "In this interpretation, an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future-ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."</ref> and [[Michael Lou Martin|Michael Martin]]{{sfn|Martin|2006}} have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.

Michael Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism [[logical consequence|entails]] negative atheism.<ref name="martin-agnosticism-entails" /><ref name="agnosticism-compatible"/> [[Agnostic atheism]] encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.<ref name="barker-agnostic-atheism"/> However, many agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/why-im-not-an-atheist-the-case-for-agnosticism_b_3345544.html |title=Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism |date=May 28, 2013 |work=[[Huffington Post]] |access-date=November 26, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131209105433/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/why-im-not-an-atheist-the-case-for-agnosticism_b_3345544.html |archive-date=December 9, 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Kenny2006>{{cite book |first=Anthony |last=Kenny |author-link=Anthony Kenny |title=What I believe |chapter=Why I Am Not an Atheist |publisher=Continuum |isbn=978-0-8264-8971-5 |quote=The true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism&nbsp;... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed. |year=2006}}</ref> According to atheists' arguments, unproven [[Faith#Religious faith|religious]] propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|pp=30–34}}. "Who seriously claims we should say 'I neither believe nor disbelieve that the Pope is a robot', or 'As to whether or not eating this piece of chocolate will turn me into an elephant I am completely agnostic'. In the absence of any good reasons to believe these outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, we don't just suspend judgement."</ref> Atheist criticism of agnosticism says that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply an equal probability of either possibility.<ref>{{harvnb|Baggini|2003|p=22}}. "A lack of proof is no grounds for the suspension of belief. This is because when we have a lack of absolute proof we can still have overwhelming evidence or one explanation which is far superior to the alternatives."</ref> Australian philosopher [[J.J.C. Smart]] argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalized [[philosophical skepticism]] which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."<ref name="stanford">{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ |title=Atheism and Agnosticism |first=J.C.C. |last=Smart |date=March 9, 2004 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=April 9, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205181908/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ |archive-date=February 5, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref> Consequently, some atheist authors, such as [[Richard Dawkins]], prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic, and atheist positions along a [[spectrum of theistic probability]]—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".{{sfn|Dawkins|2006|p=50}}

Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so accepted in the Western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called ''theistic [[innatism]]''—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are in denial.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cudworth |first=Ralph |author-link=Ralph Cudworth |title=The True Intellectual System of the Universe: the first part, wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted and its impossibility demonstrated |year=1678}}</ref> Some atheists have challenged the need for the term "atheism". In his book ''[[Letter to a Christian Nation]]'', [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]] wrote:
<blockquote>In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-[[Astrology|astrologer]]" or a "non-[[Alchemy|alchemist]]". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.{{sfn|Harris|2006|p=51}}</blockquote>