Atheism

== Arguments ==

=== Epistemological arguments ===

[[Skepticism]], based on the ideas of [[David Hume]], asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. Hume, however, held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts should be rejected as "sophistry and illusion".<ref name="hume-metaphysics" />

Michael Martin argues that atheism is a justified and rational true belief, but offers no extended epistemological justification because current theories are in a state of controversy. Martin instead argues for "mid-level principles of justification that are in accord with our ordinary and scientific rational practice."<ref name="Michael Martin">{{cite book |last1=Martin |first1=Michael |title=Atheism: A Philosophical Justification |date=1992 |publisher=Temple University Press |isbn=9780877229438 |page=26}}</ref>

Other arguments for atheism that can be classified as epistemological or [[ontology|ontological]], assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful." [[Theological noncognitivism]] holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers [[Alfred Ayer|A. J. Ayer]] and [[Theodore M. Drange]] reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.<ref>[[Theodore Drange|Drange, Theodore M.]] (1998). "[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130723234754/http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html |date=23 July 2013 }}". [[Internet Infidels]], ''Secular Web Library''. Retrieved 2007-APR-07.</ref><ref>[[Alfred Ayer|Ayer, A. J.]] (1946). ''Language, Truth and Logic''. Dover. pp. 115–116. In a footnote, Ayer attributes this view to "Professor H.H. Price".</ref>

=== Ontological arguments ===

[[File:Light_Bends_from_the_Beyond.jpg|thumb|In his work ''[[De rerum natura]]'', [[Lucretius]] stated that everything consists of atoms moving in infinity.]]
Most atheists lean toward ontological [[monism]]: the belief that there is only one kind of fundamental substance. The philosophical [[materialism]] is a view that matter is the fundamental substance in nature. This omits the possibility of a non-material divine being.<ref name="Graham Oppy">{{cite book |last1=Oppy |first1=Graham |title=Atheism: The Basics |year=2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1138506916 |edition=First|pages=14, 15}}</ref> According to [[physicalism]], only physical entities exist.<ref name="Graham Oppy"/><ref name="Daniel Stoljar">{{cite web |last1=Stoljar |first1=Daniel |title=Physicalism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Stanford University |access-date=April 14, 2021 |archive-date=November 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191103205051/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Philosophies opposed to the materialism or physicalism include [[idealism]], [[Mind–body dualism|dualism]] and other forms of monism.<ref name="Leopold Stubenberg">{{cite web |last1=Stubenberg |first1=Stubenberg |title=Neutral Monism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Stanford University |access-date=April 14, 2021 |archive-date=December 11, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171211135615/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Zdybicka 2005 19">{{harvnb|Zdybicka|2005|p=19}}.</ref><ref name="D. Gene Witmer">{{cite web |last1=Witmer |first1=D. Gene |title=Physicalism and Metaphysical Naturalism |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0258.xml |website=Oxford Bibliographies |publisher=Oxford University Press |access-date=April 13, 2021 |archive-date=April 13, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210413141153/https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0258.xml |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Naturalism (philosophy)|Naturalism]] is also used to describe the view that everything that exists is fundamentally natural, and that there are no supernatural phenomena.<ref name="Graham Oppy"/> According to naturalist view, science can explain the world with physical laws and through natural phenomena.<ref name="David Papineau">{{cite web |last1=Papineau |first1=David |title=Naturalism |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Stanford University |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ |access-date=April 14, 2021 |archive-date=April 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180426123419/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Philosopher [[Graham Oppy]] references a PhilPapers survey that says 56.5% of philosophers in academics lean toward physicalism; 49.8% lean toward naturalism.<ref name="Bourget and Chalmers">{{cite web |last1=Bourget |first1=David |last2=Chalmers |first2=David |title=The PhilPapers Surveys |url=https://philpapers.org/surveys/index.html |website=PhilPapers |publisher=The PhilPapers Foundation |access-date=April 13, 2021 |archive-date=July 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190723035239/https://philpapers.org/surveys/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

According to Graham Oppy, direct arguments for atheism aim at showing theism fails on its own terms, while indirect arguments are those inferred from direct arguments in favor of something else that is inconsistent with theism. For example, Oppy says arguing for naturalism is an argument for atheism since naturalism and theism "cannot both be true".<ref name="Ruse and Bullivant">{{cite book |last1=Oppy |first1=Graham |editor1-last=Bullivant |editor1-first=Stephen |editor2-last=Ruse |editor2-first=Michael |title=The Oxford Handbook of Atheism |date=2013 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=9780199644650 |edition=illustrated |chapter=chapter 4}}</ref>{{rp|53}} Fiona Ellis describes the "expansive naturalism" of [[John McDowell]], [[James Griffin (philosopher)|James Griffin]] and [[David Wiggins]] while also asserting there are things in human experience which cannot be explained in such terms, such as the concept of value, leaving room for theism.<ref name="Fiona Ellis">{{cite journal |last1=Ellis |first1=Fiona |title=Theistic naturalism |journal=[[The Philosophers' Magazine]] |date=2016 |volume=1st Quarter |issue=72 |page=45 |doi=10.5840/tpm20167224 |url=https://www.pdcnet.org/tpm/content/tpm_2016_0072_0045_0046 |access-date=May 1, 2021 |archive-date=April 30, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430232953/https://www.pdcnet.org/tpm/content/tpm_2016_0072_0045_0046 |url-status=live }}</ref> Christopher C. Knight asserts a [[theistic naturalism]].<ref name="Christopher C. Knight">{{cite journal |last1=Knight |first1=Christopher C. |title=Theistic Naturalism and "Special" Divine Providence |journal=Journal of Religion and Science |date=2009 |volume=44 |issue=3 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01014.x |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01014.x |publisher=Wylie online library |page=abstract |access-date=May 1, 2021 |archive-date=April 30, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430090059/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2009.01014.x |url-status=live }}</ref> Nevertheless, Oppy argues that a strong naturalism favors atheism, though he finds the best direct arguments against theism to be the evidential problem of evil, and arguments concerning the contradictory nature of God were He to exist.<ref name="Ruse and Bullivant"/>{{rp|55–60}}

=== Logical arguments ===

{{further|Existence of God#Arguments against the existence of God|l1=Arguments against the existence of God|Problem of evil|Argument from nonbelief|l3=Divine hiddenness}}

Some atheists hold the view that the various conceptions of gods, such as the [[personal god]] of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present [[existence of God#Logical arguments|deductive arguments]] against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, [[immutability (theology)|immutability]], [[omniscience]], [[omnipresence]], [[omnipotence]], [[omnibenevolence]], [[transcendence (philosophy)|transcendence]], personhood (a personal being), non-physicality, [[justice]], and [[mercy]].<ref name=logical>{{cite web |url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html |title=Logical Arguments for Atheism |publisher=[[Internet Infidels]] |website=The Secular Web Library |access-date=October 2, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117012714/http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html |archive-date=November 17, 2012 |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Theodicy|Theodicean]] atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods by theologians. They argue that an [[omniscience|omniscient]], [[omnipotence|omnipotent]], and [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]] God is not compatible with a world where there is [[problem of evil|evil]] and [[suffering]], and where divine love is [[Divine hiddenness|hidden]] from many people.<ref name="Drange-1996">{{cite web |first=Theodore M. |last=Drange |author-link=Theodore Drange |year=1996 |url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html |title=The Arguments From Evil and Nonbelief |publisher=[[Internet Infidels]] |website=Secular Web Library |access-date=October 2, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070110135633/http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html |archive-date=January 10, 2007 |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Epicurus]] is credited with first expounding the problem of evil. [[David Hume]] in his ''[[Dialogues concerning Natural Religion]]'' (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions:{{sfn|Hume|1779}} "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Similar arguments have been made in [[Buddhist philosophy]].<ref>V.A. Gunasekara, {{cite web |url=http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm |title=The Buddhist Attitude to God |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080102053643/http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm |archive-date=January 2, 2008}} In the Bhuridatta Jataka, "The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha."</ref> [[Vasubandhu]] (4/5th century) outlined [[Creator in Buddhism|numerous Buddhist arguments against God]].<ref>Vasubandhu wrote in his ''Sheath of [[Abhidharma]] ([[Abhidharmakośakārikā|Abhidharmakosha]]): "Besides, do you say that God finds joy in seeing the creatures which he has created in the prey of all the distress of existence, including the tortures of the hells? Homage to this kind of God! The profane stanza expresses it well: "One calls him Rudra because he burns, because he is sharp, fierce, redoubtable, an eater of flesh, blood and marrow." de La Vallee Poussin, Louis (fr. trans.); Sangpo, Gelong Lodro (eng. trans.) (2012) ''Abhidharmakośa-Bhāṣya of Vasubandhu Volume I'', p. 677. Motilal Banarsidass Pubs. ISBN 978-81-208-3608-2</ref>

=== Reductionary accounts of religion ===

{{Further|Evolutionary origin of religions|Evolutionary psychology of religion|Psychology of religion}}

Philosopher [[Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach|Ludwig Feuerbach]]<ref>Feuerbach, Ludwig (1841) ''[[The Essence of Christianity]]''</ref>
and psychoanalyst [[Sigmund Freud]] have argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs.<ref>Walpola Rahula, ''What the Buddha Taught''. Grove Press, 1974. pp. 51–52.</ref> [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to [[Mikhail Bakunin]], "the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory, and practice." He reversed [[Voltaire]]'s aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him, writing instead that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html |title=God and the State |last=Bakunin |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Bakunin |year=1916 |publisher=New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association |access-date=April 9, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110521195435/http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html |archive-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live}}</ref>