The Definition of Atheism

Atheism as an exemplar of rationality

By Jouni Vilkka, UTA, 2001-10-22

This page is part of the official web site of Jouni Vilkka at jounivilkka.fi
The full URL to this page is http://jounivilkka.fi/DefinitionOfAtheism.htm
Back to my philosophy page: http://jounivilkka.fi/filosofia.htm

The definition

The easiest way to define 'atheism', is to look at the word 'atheist' instead. The word is composed of two parts: 'theist' and it's negation (the 'a-' in front of the word). [The negation is equivalent to the 'u-' in 'utopia' (the 'no-place'; the name is meant to imply that the place is just a thought-experiment, not a real country)].

The word 'theist' means "a person who believes in the existence of god". The operative word here is "believes", not "existence" as is often claimed. This means that the atheist "does not believe in god". You might think that this means that (as claimed by theists) the atheists believes that god doesn't exist. But the logical structure of the sentence is not what ordinary language might (mis)lead us to think. Look at the following sentences:

1. I believe that God exists
2. I do not believe that God exists
3. I believe that God does not exist

The above shows what atheism really is and is not. The first view is obviously theism. The view expressed by sentence number 3 (what theists usually claim atheism to be) might be called "strong atheism". It could also be expressed as the claim that "there is no god". The "problem" with the view is that it is so strong that very few people (if any) would accept it. The usual form of atheism is, instead, expressed by sentence number 2: "I do not believe", or even better, "I have no belief concerning…"

The point of the latter view is that instead of making a positive claim about whether of not god exists, the atheist refuses to have an opinion either way. The atheist does not have a belief concerning the matter.

Atheism creates a dichotomy between belief and lack of belief - not between different beliefs. As the logical structures of views 1 and 3 show, the beliefs are two different (and contradicting) beliefs, while view 2 - atheism - does not have a belief, but instead is the negation of belief. Thus atheism is not at the same level with religions, including different denominations and cults, or superstitious belief systems in general. It is the antithesis of the whole category of "belief" that all the belief systems belong to. (For this reason the treatment atheists get in most discussions about world views or ethics is not equal to the treatment the theists get: for every theist in a panel (for example), there should also be an atheist - as opposed to atheism being represented by only one person while all the different theistic views have their own proponents - or otherwise there should be only one theist and one atheist involved. In the latter case the discussion would be at the correct level (logically), but of course no one can represent all the forms of irrationality at once.)

Some examples of the different categories and their relations:

Atheism as the rational choice

To have a rational belief, one has to have justification for the belief. This is the reason why I consider atheism to be an exemplar of rationality. For a proposition to have justification, the proposition must (obviously enough) exist first. We only form beliefs when we become aware of propositions that we need to consider. If we behave rationally, we will only believe those propositions that we have justification for. By justification I mean philosophical, epistemological justification. This can be provided by arguments based on valid reasoning or evidence.

What is the status of theism as rationally evaluated? Is the belief in god justified? The atheist, or any philosopher, would respond: "not without definition - what is meant by 'god'?" We are often asked, "Do you believe in God?" but rarely are we told what that is supposed to mean. If we do not know the meaning of this word, we cannot possibly understand the question - it is meaningless to us. And thus we cannot form a belief about it. That would be the same as forming a belief about "Rumpelstiltskin" - assuming that we are not familiar with that name or word. Thus the theist has to define her "god" before we can form any beliefs about it, or even discuss the matter.

The atheist would not even be called an atheist, if there weren't so many theists around. That's because the atheist stands in the commonsensical position of believing only when justified (e.g.- People have no beliefs regarding the job, social status, or even existence of Rumpelstiltskin, unless they've heard of the evil little man [a fairy tale]). The non-existence of anything must be the default assumption. Thus the atheist must only evaluate the claims of the theist, who has the burden of proof. The theist has to put her god(s) on an examination table before the discussion can begin. The word "god" only gains meaning at that point (like Wittgenstein said, a word's use is it's meaning). The atheist has no more reason to suddenly start talking about gods than he has about a Rumpelstiltskin he's never heard of. Thus the atheist, remaining in the default position of lack of such beliefs provides us an exemplar of rationality.