Atheist Day 2022: On Being a Somewhat Atheistic Philosopher

Happy Atheist Day! 🥳🎉🎊🎉🥂🍾🎇🎆 I would add some atheist emojis here but I can't find any specific ones, unlike the choice we have for the various religions 🙄 There's bias right there! This despite the fact that there could be up to 750 million atheists in the world which would make atheism the 4th largest 'religion'! Anyway, it seems that the emoji atheists have adopted on social media is one that scientists also use, which is a scientific symbol of an atom: ⚛️

For Atheist Day this year, I'd like to unpack the complexities and a few details about atheism, which, I think, are oversimplified and generalised. Just as with most belief systems or identities, atheism is on a spectrum and not a simple matter of 'either you are, or you are not'. Nevertheless, there is no set definition of Atheism or a required set of beliefs one must hold to count as an atheist.

My aim in this post is two fold: one, to explore the various ways in which people can be atheists and expand our knowledge and understanding of atheism; two, explain the ways I personally am and am not an atheist philosopher, as my atheistic beliefs are dependent on the context of the religion or belief in question. 

What are the main types of atheism?

Hard Atheism: 

(also known as Strong or Positive Atheism)

This is what I think of as outright atheism and as the stance which is the exact opposite of theism. This position asserts a certain belief that God does not exist, whether this is one or more than one God. This qualifies as an explicit stance because it states the non-belief directly, so it is not just an implicit, indirect consequence of a different statement. 

Soft Atheism:

(also known as Weak or Negative Atheism)

This stance is also an explicit stance. However, it is a softer, more moderated stance than the above one because it does not directly falsify a belief in God. The Soft Atheist doesn't actively disbelieve that there is one or more gods, they have what is often referred to as an absence of belief in God. Nevertheless, they have an active opinion on the non-existence of God. 

Implicit Soft Atheism:

(also known as Implicit Weak or Negative Atheism)

This stance also has an absence of belief in a God but they do not actively reject the concept of God or directly disprove statements about God's existence. 

No Concept Atheism:

This refers to someone who simply doesn't think about God at all so doesn't form an idea of one or more Gods. 

Combining Different Types of Atheism:

So an atheist could hold one of the above types of atheism across the board about all and any gods. Or, they can hold a combination of the above, by selecting any number of these in relation to different gods. So, for instance, an atheist could be a Hard Atheist about the Christian God (actively believing that this God and the definition/description of Him does not exist), while simultaneously being a Soft Atheist about Hindu gods (having an absence of belief in them but don't actively disprove their existence or argue against it) yet can also be a No Concept Atheist about all the gods they have never thought about, such as culturally specific ones in the Ancient world.

Combining Atheism and Agnosticism:

I think the two are very different and distinct from one another. For a start, I think that Atheism must affirm a disbelief, just as Theism must affirm a belief. Whereas, Agnosticism need not affirm a belief or disbelief. Some Agnostics do to some extent, but I don't: I identity with the approach to Agnosticism whereby one suspends belief. By belief here I mean it in the strong philosophical sense - a certain, justified true belief which has a shot at becoming knowledge. This is a difference between me and Spinoza, who argues in the Ethics that everyone affirms or denies X, people cannot simply suspend judgement. However, I have always found myself suspending judgement and belief about all sorts of things, especially where I feel that there's insufficient grounds to form enough certainty, not just about religion but also about everyday topics I hear, such as gossip about someone. It's not a lack of trust or impractical, as some philosophers can argue against scepticism or suspend judgement. Personally, I find it very practical! And I am glad I do prefer to suspend judgement when I come across gossip that a person or group of people present as true facts they are certain about that I happen to know for a fact are false! One woman philosopher I came across at a conference told me, as we were discussing an epistemological point, that people should simply believe everything that people tell them. No, I can't see myself ever doing that! It's just not my mentality and I've also heard too much 💩 from too many people, or to put it philosophically, false testimony or statements! 

Having said that Agnosticism and Atheism are distinct, this does not preclude someone from holding Agnostic beliefs as well as Atheist beliefs about different gods. I realised the other day that I was assuming this when I wrote that I'm an agnostic-agnostic. This is my general, overall stance but there are nuances too. 

I am nevertheles an atheist when it comes to Christianity: like Russell, I am a Hard Atheist about the Christian God and Jesus/Christ (concerning any denomination of Christianity and their particular definitions, concepts or beliefs of God). I identify with Spinoza's comment that Jesus/Christ makes about as much sense as a circle that has the nature of a square, although my stance is that of Hard Atheism about Christianity whereas Spinoza softens this to a rejection of superstition, especially concerning Catholicism, and an argument akin to No Concept Atheism about Jesus/Christ. But Spinoza certainly was not an atheist (his theism was about the G-d of Judaism), as can be explicitly seen in his Letter 30 (letter to Oldenburg 1665) when he says that one of his main aims in writing his TTP was to show that he is not an atheist and to refute those who claim otherwise. Likewise, I'm certainly not an atheist about the existence of the G-d of Judaism. But I'm not the outright theist that Spinoza is, nor would I construct any proofs for the existence of God, as he does. I'm a Humanistic Jew so it's not a central issue for me and doesn't interest me. 

Here I shall just briefly point out that, although I have mentioned Spinoza and Russell in the same paragraph about Agnosticism and Atheism, I think that:

1) these philosophers must never be conflated with one another 

2) any strands of Russell's Agnosticism and Atheism, including his eclectic views on Christianity and Spirituality, should not be conflated with me or any other living philosophers.

I think this is worth a quick mention and is something I can't assume is obvious to all philosophers and theologians since I've come across such conflations a few times now. For instance, after marking my first BA essay (on the topic in metaphysics of - can we step into the same river twice?) my tutorial tutor Simon Hewitt drew a likeness between myself and Bertrand Russell. How nice, I thought! 🙂 Although, I did wonder later when I discovered, quite by chance, that he was a lay Dominican. Furthermore, I recently, happened upon a series of newspaper articles published in 2013 in the Guardian by Clare Carlisle on Russell in which I feel she makes quite a few conflations and slippages concerning agnosticism, atheism and beliefs. She seems to find a way to make Catholicism relevant to thinking about Russell's views and attempts to somehow salvage and preserve something religious and spiritual in Russell's thought. I'm pretty sure that's not where Russell was going with his philosophy! 😱 And, just to be clear, neither is my philosophy going in these directions to promote Religion or Spiritualism! 

And given Nostra Aetate, no Catholic should be projecting their beliefs onto non-Christians. This declaration (Second Vatican Council) means that all Catholics must respect other beliefs/religions, including Judaism! Although this is a specific obligation for Catholics, this ethos should apply to all Christians and non-Christians too. There is such a thing as interfaith if you want to participate in gaining knowledge, respect and tolerance through dialogue and learning about other faiths. Nobody needs to run after individuals trying to convert them to, or skew their thought towards, religion or any form of spirituality. This equally applies posthumously. Don't rewrite history. After all, Christians may be theists in terms of Christianity, but they are atheists in relation to other religions and their god or gods. 

I'm not identical to either Spinoza or Russell whether about religion or spirituality. I identify with Spinoza's bypass about Christianity, including Catholicism and Jesus/Christ. Why would either of us be into it? Neither of us have been brought up Christian or have ever believed in it so why would it suddenly speak to us as adults for the first time in our life? I am always flabbergasted that zealous Christians don't seem to be able to grasp this simple point. Maybe their problem is that they think they have some right to convert anybody and everybody into whatever Christians want, whether it is converting an atheist or Jew to a Christian theist church-goer and/or converting an LGBTQIAPD+ person into being straight and or cisgender. 

Personally, I think proselytizing and converting others is wrong and I'm horrified that most countries, including the UK and all European Union countries, except for Greece, think there's nothing reprehensible about it even though it can include coercion, violence and bribery. This would be illegal in any other context so why's religion the exception, again? Why is there a blind spot when it comes to religion that means everyone acts as though anything goes as long as religion is purported to be the reason? This encourages an escalation of violence which can, in some instances, lead to war as we can see with our very own eyes going on right now in the Ukraine. 😢 It has been reported in mainstream media, recently, that the war in the Ukraine is a Holy War, something that makes us think of the Crusades, because it is supported and advocated by Patriarch Kirill, (Leader of the Russian Orthodox Church) who is an ex-KGB agent 😳 and close to Putin. So Communists were not all atheists as we are led to believe.🧐 In Leningrad, Russia, Kirill studied Theology at a Theological Academy as well as attending a seminary there, all during the Communist era! 🤷 

So Atheism should not be conflated with Communism. Atheists can be of any political stance and generally we should not stereotype them or scaremonger that Atheists are going to take over the world somehow 🤔😂or destroy religion. Oh please!🤣Atheists don't try to convert you to their beliefs, just as gay people don't try to convert straight people into being gay. Freedom means letting people choose for themselves, believe whatever sits well with them. Besides, forcing people to change who they are and what they believe invalidates the whole process and result. It doesn't work.