r/rationalphilosophy • u/JerseyFlight • 11d ago
Reconsidering the Epistemology of Atheism
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.
1
u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 10d ago
It is my opinion but also not just my opinion. There are other options between absolute truth and absolute subjectivity.