What is atheism? A note to my atheist friends

I must say that as a general rule I like the atheists I meet. Oh sure, there is the odd mean fundamentalist atheist out there, just like in every other belief system. But most atheists I talk with are intelligent and thoughtful, if at times overly defensive.

As a result, atheists generally are great company at a coffee shop, where a heady conversation on matters of eternal import is almost guaranteed. But one thing can hamper such conversations, and that is misunderstanding. Sadly, I have found that atheists often misunderstand both the nature of atheism and of Christianity, and in the next few posts I'll offer some modest commentary in this regard.

In this post I'll begin to address confusion on the nature (and evidential burden) of atheism. The problem here, in short, is that atheists often are not clear either on what atheism is or on what its rational defense requires.

Problems begin when atheists confuse atheism with agnosticism (a confusion which in my experience happens quite often). Atheism is the affirmation of the proposition (1) "there is no God". Agnosticism is the stance where one affirms neither (1) "there is no God" or its negation, (2) "there is a God". Agnosticism is a respectable position. One may very well believe there is inadequate evidence either way to settle the question. But I have encountered a number of people who took the agnostic position, and yet persisted in calling themselves atheists. And this is confused, if not disingenous.

Perhaps even more often I have met self-described atheists who leave it unclear what they believe. Such is the case when they say things like this: "I am simply without belief in God." Note that this statement is consistent with both atheism and agnosticism. To be without belief in God could mean that you affirm (1) rather than (2) (that is, you take the atheist position), or it could mean you do not affirm either (1) or (2) (which is agnosticism).

Why do many self-described atheists either adopt agnostic positions or leave it unclear whether they really are agnostics or atheists? In part this might be due to muddled thinking. But another reason is that atheism carries a higher evidential burden than agnosticism. After all, (1) is a claim about the nature of reality, it is a claim to knowledge, and as such it requires evidence. And the self-described atheist might simply not be up to the challenge of providing that evidence to defend his belief.

It should also be noted that agnosticism does not actually relieve a person of their evidential burden, for even if agnosticism is the witholding of belief in (1) and (2), it is still a claim that the most rational position is to withold belief in (1) and (2). And that position requires as much defense as theism and atheism.

Clearing up these matters is essential at the beginning of the conversation because it will make it clear that both the Christian and atheist (or agnostic) have something to defend, and something to lose. With a level playing field at the outset, the way is now cleared for a very engaging dialogue.