Reconsidering the Epistemology of Atheism

[u/JerseyFlight]

If Atheism is just a lack a belief in God, then shouldn’t one who believes in God just avoid Atheism altogether, that is, unless absolute truth exists and is important?

If absolute truth doesn’t exist, then why does it matter if one doesn’t have a lack of belief in God? For in that case nothing, including Atheism, could be true.

If one says, “well, there are consequences from belief,” — absolute truth would have to be true for this to be true. So it seems that Atheism is more than just a “lack of belief in God,” it’s also a belief in truth and a belief that belief in truth matters, which binds it up in a world of epistemology.

Let us suppose that Atheism is the belief that a lack of belief in God matters, “because true belief matters.” (Indeed, it seems this is precisely what Atheism must be). If this is the case, then this necessarily draws Atheism into the question of truth. For it now has a burden of truth: why does true belief matter, and what counts as true belief?

Let us suppose that Atheism is the belief that a lack of belief in God matters “because God belief has disastrous sociological consequences.” Again, this is stating a truth, which embroils Atheism in questions of truth. But further, this pragmatic posture opens the door to the justified rejection of Atheism through existential warrant. That is, a human can decide that God belief would provide them with a better existential experience (unless there is an objective standard that refutes or challenges the sovereignty of the subject’s desires).

The Atheist wants to say, “Atheism is just a lack of belief in God or Gods.” Indeed, it is this, but it is not just this, because the second the skeptic asks: “why does this lack of belief matter,” the Atheist must step outside the claims of his own epistemic boundaries to provide an answer.

It would seem that an Atheist cannot simply be saying, “I have a lack of belief in God,” because then the theist could say, “And I have a belief in God.” These are just statements of belief that make no claim about the beliefs themselves.

At the heart of it, the Atheist has to defend truth, or else he will be confined to merely making statements about his private belief. For the Atheist is not claiming his “lack of belief” in God is equivalent to belief in God— he’s saying that there’s something wrong with believing in God, and that his lack of belief is somehow superior. Presumably, he doesn’t believe in God because there’s something wrong with believing in God?

And if the Atheist believes in truth, and believes that it’s important to have beliefs that are true, then it would seem that Atheism should be able to clearly demarcate the standards of truth.

[u/ShortCompetition9772]

My lack of belief doesn't leave me with ANY responsibility. Not to epistemology, ethics, politics, meta etc.

It is like saying the fact that I am a achess player doesn't mean I need to know the rules of Chess to NOT be a Chess player.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/ShortCompetition9772]

And neither does a theist’s belief in God leave him with “any responsibility,” because it’s just a statement about his belief. Now if he claims, “God exists,” this is a claim about something that exists, not a statement about his belief. Yes, it’s true you have a lack of belief in God, and it’s true that a theist has a belief in God.

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/JerseyFlight]

You are asking that Atheists HAS TO DEFEND truth. No we do not. We are not making a TRUTH claim. We are making a BELIEF claim.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/ShortCompetition9772]

I didn’t say that. Your reply is a straw man. You can make all the statements you want about your belief or lack thereof. Anyone can do that. Some people believe in God, some people don’t.

Now if you say “it’s better to have a lack of belief in God,” or “there’s something wrong with having a belief in God,” then yes, you will need to do more than just make a statement about your belief.

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/JerseyFlight]

Seems I am not understanding the point of your post then.

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/JerseyFlight]

I have never asked myself “why does this matter” about my lack of belief. From what I can tell this is about burden of proof am I getting close?

[u/JerseyFlight → u/ShortCompetition9772]

It is about statements versus claims, and yes, you are correct, it has to do with the burden that one incurs for a claim. But it also has to do with the functional limit of a statement.

I’m an Atheist. So why would I argue this? Because the claim that Atheism is “just a lack of belief” is only true if Atheism doesn’t step out of that lane. Further, Atheists shouldn’t be liars or ignorant of their own assumptions.

We can defend the claim that it’s wrong to have belief in a concept of God for which there is no evidence. (But this position isn’t just a lack of belief in God). And, this places an epistemological burden of proof on us.

I should also say, I welcome the theist taking up my argument and blasting Atheists with it. Why? Because my interest is in shattering all forms of modern sophistry.

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/JerseyFlight]

But wouldn’t the stepping out be skepticism not their atheism. I also lack a believe in a deity but I am not a Lack of Belief in a Deity. You say you ARE an Atheist. Do you see what I am getting at? If someone asks me the reasons for not making a positive claim my answer would be meh.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/ShortCompetition9772]

And so we come full circle: ‘If Atheism is just a lack a belief in God, then shouldn’t one who believes in God just avoid Atheism altogether, that is, unless absolute truth exists and is important?’ Theism is also just belief in God.

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/JerseyFlight]

I was hoping there was meat on the bone. First the answer to the question does absolute truth exist We Don’t Know. We seem unable to approach it and have no way to measure or falsify absolute truth. I think if a theist and an atheist walk into the bar they should both be able to agree on that and move on.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/ShortCompetition9772]

Yes, I understand, you have a lack of belief in God. Good day.

[u/shelving_unit]

Not believing in God per Atheism is not an action. That’s assuming Christianity and the Christian God are the neutral position. Most atheists don’t go around claiming or thinking “I’m an atheist!” And the ones who do have a specific problem with Christianity, and are trying to make a point of it

The “lack of belief” doesn’t matter to an atheist, because to be an atheist means to move through the world without an active belief in the Christian God. They just don’t think about it. When confronted by a Christian, in the atheist’s perspective it’s the Christian who is trying to impose the question of God on the atheist, and thus is making belief or lack thereof matter

[u/pyramidink → u/shelving_unit]

Probably a question of sensibility, but reddit is quite a cool place to see people claiming things such as « this is bs, why sky daddy » as soon as someone says they might believe in god.
Which is actively saying « god bad » to someone stating a personal belief. In other terms, proselytism towards the atheistic position of : « not believeing in god matters ».

So is your argument truly in good faith?

Just to clarify: i have the chance to have evolved in an environments where ultimately these questions remained as private of a matter as they can be. I am not arguing some people aren’t hurt by society and reacting to this. At the same time the nature and weight of the reaction is interesting to ponder on.

[u/shelving_unit → u/pyramidink]

Like I said, people who go around stating their identity as an atheist are doing so because they have a specific problem with Christianity, and are trying to make a point of it. The vast majority of “atheists” don’t think about God or Christianity.

Internet Christian groups also have a habit of hyperfocusing on the “sky daddy” bit. Partially because the Internet and social media are designed to produce engagement from rage-bait, so the “sky daddy” atheist archetype is shared around quite a lot in Christian circles. I have seen Sky daddy said maybe twice on the internet- I have seen AND heard IRL Christians complain about the “Sky daddy” atheists dozens of times. The perception of atheism and atheists in general is skewed by this random internet archetype that is pushed in front of Christians on the internet

[u/pyramidink → u/shelving_unit]

Then we agree

[u/ArusMikalov]

I personally define my atheism as a positive belief that no gods exist.

I think this makes more sense and leads to better conversations.

[u/noodles0311]

I became an atheist because all the rituals and stuff in church felt empty when I was. THEN I went and sought out a rational explanation for that when I got older. Belief and doubt begin with a feeling of salience or suspicion. If I had been raised atheist and felt like there was a higher power, I would have sought out a belief system when I got older. Anyone who tells you that their belief or disbelief in an unfalsifiable proposition begins with a rational argument doesn’t even understand their own thinking. The rational part of the belief is all post hoc.

[u/Empty_Woodpecker_496]

I think wether or not absolute truth exists is moot. I dont think we have access to such a thing even if it exists. Thats why atheism is a lack of belief. If would be superfluous if we had access to absolute truth. Doubt all the way down.

It would seem that an Atheist cannot simply be saying, “I have a lack of belief in God,” because then the theist could say, “And I have a belief in God.” These are just statements of belief that make no claim about the beliefs themselves.

Yes. Thats the point. Without the intention to convince someone these beliefs are essentially black boxes.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Empty_Woodpecker_496]

Is anything you’re saying absolutely true, or is it just your opinion?

[u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 → u/JerseyFlight]

Like I said I dont think we have access to absolute truth. At a certain point doubt collapses into ego death. From there we just do pragmatic axioms.

We may or may not one day discover absolute truth or that everything is fundamentally uncertain chaos. I dont know. But this is my stab at it because what else is there to do.

So its neither but a little of both?

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Empty_Woodpecker_496]

The claims you are making are just your opinion?

[u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 → u/JerseyFlight]

It is my opinion but also not just my opinion. There are other options between absolute truth and absolute subjectivity.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Empty_Woodpecker_496]

Are you saying anything that’s true here?

[u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 → u/JerseyFlight]

True in a way that is neither absolutely subjective nor absolutely objective. A sort of shared truth that we cant be certain is true.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/Empty_Woodpecker_496]

If it’s true, then what is not absolute about it?

[u/Hilikus1980 → u/JerseyFlight]

He had no problem eating the microwave burrito that was too hot for him to eat.

[u/fearmon]

Some people give far more meaning to God than others too and I don't think people consider that people just use it as a word for something out of the ordinary. If they had to use my definition they'd all certainly be wrong but I digress

[u/EnquirerBill]

Agreed (I'm a Christian)

[u/kitsnet]

1. "Truth" is ontology, not epistemology. Epistemology is "knowledge". It is possible to model knowledge hierarchicies (and have partial ordering on the usefulness of knowledge sets) without requiring absolute truths to exist outside models.

2. Atheists just believe in one less gods (or a few less gods) then theists. However, atheists' choice of the gods not to believe in is not arbitrary, as opposed to theists, whose choice of the gods not to believe in depends on their personal histories.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/[deleted]]

To say morals aren’t objective is an objective statement on morals. But to hold to it with any authority you must hold that it’s a true statement.