Atheist Chat

I'm not sure why, exactly, but atheism fascinates me. I used to spend a lot of time in online chatrooms, particularly those antagonistic to Christianity. (Come to think of it, that was most of them.) During that time I made "friends" with a handful of atheists who displayed a willingness to do more than hurl insults but rather to discuss matters of faith and philosophy intelligently and civilly. One of those dialogue partners frequently engaged Christians in debate yet was reluctant to offer an argument in support of his own position. His rationale for this was that since he was a negative atheist (one who lacks a belief in God but does not assert that God does not exist), he was making no assertion and therefore was under no obligation to offer a defense.

This is a very common ploy but I think it's flawed. Objections to Christianity are not acontextual. They arise from alternative systems of belief which have their own presuppositions about the nature and limits of reality and human knowing, and how it is we should live. What's often needed is for the Christian to unearth the implicit worldview from which objections arise rather than simply responding as though the atheist's starting point is neutral or the default position that does not stand in need of defense.

Here's an excerpt of an exchange with the atheist I mentioned above, whom I'll call Raven. To his credit, he saw the problem with having to defend the assertion that God does not exist so he sought refuge in the more modest claim that he does not believe that God exists. However, if one listened closely, he or she could detect that Raven spoke as though he was doing more than merely describing his mental furniture.

Raven: How would you define atheism in the philosophical sense? The reason I ask is that I find myself having to defend my definition time and time again, and not to Christians as you might think, but more often to self-styled agnostics.

KP: I’d define atheism as the belief that there is no God or gods. I know some try to make the “a” prefix (no) modify “theism” (a belief in a God or gods) but that is not the etymology of the word. You’ve said yourself that atheism is an ontological and not merely an epistemological position, haven't you?

Raven: I opt for the two-pronged definition: disbelief and denial. Yes I have. That has always been my understanding.

KP: And if it is ontological, isn't it making an assertion about what is? If not, then it is merely describing one's belief system and is therefore epistemological.

Raven: I checked Barnhart's Etymology tonight and it defines the word as disbelief. I'm really not sure that atheism, in the negative/implicit sense, does make an assertion.

KP: Then in what sense is it ontological and not simply epistemological?

Raven: Barnhart does not define it as disbelief but allows it.

KP: In what sense is it ontological if it is only describing one's psychology?

Raven: As atheism is a position on existence, not knowledge of existence, wouldn't it be ontological?

KP: But if it’s a position on existence, then it’s making some sort of claim about the nature of reality.

Raven: Yes, positive atheism makes a claim. But does negative atheism make a claim?

KP: If I define atheism simply as a lack of a particular belief I’m not making an ontological claim but an epistemological one; namely that person A does not hold this belief.

Raven: Obviously I'll have to do some more study on this.

KP: That's why I think the negative atheism argument ends up reducing to subjectivism.

Raven: Yes, perhaps it does at that.

KP: It's simply a description of a person's psyche but says nothing about anything outside the individual's mind.

Raven: Very good point.

KP: Granted, it's a pretty good attempt at avoiding having to defend anything, but it doesn't say anything except about the person claiming to lack the belief.

Raven: Well, I can't in all honesty declare that a God does not exist. I'm not one to cut my nose off to spite my face.

KP: I think you've hidden behind that "I'm not making any claims" position while still wanting to regard it as ontological. The two don't fit.

Raven: I see your point.

KP: Had that ever occurred to you?

Raven: Yes, it had.

KP: And how did you try to resolve the tension?

Raven: I haven't as of yet.

KP: And what if you cannot?

Raven: I'll burn that bridge while I am crossing it.

KP: :-)

Raven: As I see it, if I have to abandon the notion that my particular brand of atheism is ontological, so be it. The effect is minimal.

KP: But then would you be able to say that others who don’t share your brand of atheism are irrational or without justification?

Raven: That remains to be seen, though to be honest, I do feel that the positive atheism position is irrational and without justification.

KP: So what would cause your position to differ from subjectivism?

Raven: We'll have to wait and see.

KP: Do you see any difference now?

Raven: No, should I?

KP: I meant do you see anything that would distinguish that form of negative atheism from subjectivism?

Raven: Not off the top of my head, no.

KP: Would you be willing to live with that?

Raven: I'm willing to 'live' with anything I may discover.

KP: If everything ultimately reduces to subjectivism, then nothing is actually discovered. I'd like to talk with you more about this topic and hear how your thinking unfolds.

Related Tags: atheism, theism, Christianity, faith, apologetics