31.3 F
Spokane
Friday, April 4, 2025
spot_img
HomeCommentaryAsk an Atheist: Is atheism dependent on religion?

Ask an Atheist: Is atheism dependent on religion?

Date:

spot_img

Related stories

A frozen debit card melts my heart and teaches me kindness

A frozen debit card melts the author's heart replacing her irritation with compassion, teaching her kindness by seeing others as children of God.

‘Cremation of the Century’ celebrates Bali’s rich Hindu culture

The author recalls Bali's "cremation of the century" over 30 years ago he experienced, when Balinese honored their dead, along with a queen from an ancient Hindu kingdom.

A call to national unity: ‘Try to love one another. Right now.’

Classism and inequality are real, but the focus should be on national unity, not dividing by party. We need to work together to address economic struggles.

Multiple cultures clash over the future of the American dream

If the future of the American dream is to survive, her people need to reaquaint themselves with the culture of civility and honesty. Then, they need to clash against disinformation, social media influencers, and more.

Ask an Evangelical: Why did God send Jesus Christ to die for us?

In this Ask an Evangelical column, the reader asks why did God send his son, Jesus, to die for us. This answer centers on blood, perfect sacrifices and the need for atonement.

Our Sponsors

spot_img

What do you want to Ask an Atheist? Submit your questions online or fill out the form below.

By Jim Downard

Just my observation: Atheism — defined as non-belief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism — seems formed in relation to, or in connection with, the existence of religious belief. Atheism needs the binary of religion or spirituality in order to exist.

Atheism may seem, at first glance, to suggest the doubt of the existence of a deity. However, it does not offer adequate proofs that a deity does or does not exist — a position that appears unprovable. Those who believe need no greater proofs than the ones they have, and for those who do not believe, no proofs are adequate to overturn their certainty.

Thus, atheism offers no proofs one way or the other, but rather remains in conversation (albeit antagonistically) with a culture of belief. In the end it seems that atheism is merely the belief against the *belief* in a deity. It is a reaction to, not a well-defined philosophical stance about the nature and existence of a godless universe, which seems another conversation altogether.

Moreover, like many who follow a ritual of religion without knowing its fundamental underpinnings, many atheists base their views on personal biases, traditions of non-belief, and a contempt for or a sense of superiority toward those who live outside their personal world view. Neither side has solid proof of their position and both seem to be opposite sides of the same conversation.

My questions: How does the conversation of belief/non-belief ultimately address an ethical (socially just) society? This seems much more useful to us all. How does the moral society operate?

SPO_House-ad_Ask-an-atheist_0425133Atheism, as I have noted before, may be seen either as a sectarian disbelief in a particular god or the broader current view of disbelief in all gods universally. Logically, it is up to believers in god(s) to make a positive case for belief in their god(s) to the exclusion of all others. That typically is a tough hurdle, which is why so many defenders of particular god(s) prefer to restrict their argument to their faith vs none at all atheism, rather than a far slipperier comparative religion defense. It’s not the imperative of the anti-unicornist to prove the nonexistence of the unicorn (a negative), rather it is up to the unicornist to actively try to show proof that unicorns exist at all (a positive). Same goes for god(s).
As for the moral implications of belief/nonbelief, I have mentioned before how such normative issues are inherently unsolvable through logic or empirical proof, and are inherently matters of assumptive belief (see “NOMA Revisited” at www.tortucan.wordpress.com for a fuller exposition of my argument on that). Atheist moral arguments building on personal responsibility and universal reciprocity at least are spared the gymnastic hurdle of having to defend the whole shebang of moralist claims that come with particular religions (such as love thy neighbor, but you may beat your slave to death with impunity if he drops dead after a few days instead of immediately).

Jim Downard
Jim Downard
Jim Downard is a Spokane native (with a sojourn in Southern California back in the early 1960s) who was raised in a secular family, so says had no personal faith to lose. He's always been a history and science buff (getting a bachelor's in the former area at what was then Eastern Washington University in the early 1970s).

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img
spot_img
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest


0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
spot_img
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x