1. Defining Atheism
I like to start with the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) because it is a historical dictionary of the English language. The OED defines an “atheist” as “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.” This usage dates to the 1500s as, for example, found in the Psalms of David with Commentaries written by Jean Calvin. “The Atheistes which say…there is no God.” The word, of course, became popular by the twentieth century. Another use given by the OED is “one who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of one's moral obligation in that respect; a godless person.”
Likewise, according to the OED, the word “atheism” means, “disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God” or, per the second sense, “disregard of duty to God, godlessness.” Its etymology is Greek (then French and Italian) from the obsolete word atheal (ἄθεος) which referred to that which is “most vile” and “heathenish.” Note the negative connotation in the second senses of both words.
Because it is a historical dictionary, the OED is also the accepted authority on the English language. Dictionaries do not tell us what words mean. Rather, they tell us what we decided words meant. It is a necessary starting place for analyzing philosophically what we mean by words today. The goal is to get past that.
2. How do Atheists Define Atheism?
The OED may be the authority on the English language, but I’m told that Dr. Graham Oppy, Professor of Philosophy at Monash University, Australia, is a top authority on atheism today. In Atheism: The Basics (2018), he devotes the second chapter to “setting the record straight.” Oppy provides his definition of both words, “…atheism is the claim that there are no gods, and atheists are those who believe that there are no gods” (6). But he doesn’t stop there. Atheists, he says, are part of a bigger group of people who fail to believe gods exist. This group includes “innocents” such as children and anyone incapable of considering the question, such as those with advanced dementia. Agnostics are people who have considered the question but have not made a judgement. Atheists go one step further: they can and have considered the question and fail to believe because they conclude that there are no gods.
Oppy does not agree with Richard Dawkins who opined that to disbelieve in any god is to be an atheist. A Christian, according to Dawkins, is a Thor-atheist if he does not believe Thor exists. Likewise, Oppy does not think atheism is a religion, as lawyer and philosopher Bo Jinn argues. Nor does Oppy agree that children are atheists, an idea proposed by Paul Heinrich Dietrich, a.k.a. Baron D’holbach, a prolific and prominent French atheist from the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Oppy also rejects that atheists by default are fundamentalists, political idealogues, anti-religious, immoral, ignorant, or horrible (see Chapter 5). He says atheists do not necessarily hate gods and that atheism is not unlivable or irrational. Oppy covers the gamut. Atheists can be many things. His definition is: “Atheists believe that there are no gods. End of story.”
3. How do Catholics Define Atheism?
If the OED is the go-to source for English and Graham Oppy for atheism, then the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the Catholic book of answers. The CCC has a brief section on atheism embedded in a bigger part on the Ten Commandments.
All of the CCC is numbered by paragraph, and this part is comprised of paragraphs 2110 – 2126 beginning on page 515, addressing superstition, idolatry, divination and magic, irreligion, and finally atheism. It references the pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965, Gaudium et spes (GS). The context is important; atheism is a violation of the First Commandment.
According to the CCC and GS, atheism is “one of the most serious problems of our time” (CCC 2123, GS 19). The reason given is that atheists do not perceive or explicitly reject the “intimate and vital bond of man to God.” The Church sees this issue as more than one of logical argument. The phrase “people…do not perceive” is a reference to God’s existence as Creator being self-evident.* The object of perception is not only that God exists, but that God is personal, which is a related but different proposition. Oppy’s definition makes no mention of a personal God.
The CCC goes on to say that atheism rejects or denies God’s existence and is therefore what St. Paul in his letter to the Romans calls a sin against the virtue of religion (CCC 2125, Romans 1:18). The rejection of God, according to the CCC, is based on a false idea of human freedom such that atheists think it an insult for the human to depend on God for existence (CCC 2126). This offense is mitigated by intent and circumstances (CCC2125). Here the CCC echos Pope Paul VI and actually points the finger at believers.
Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.
The CCC also mentions agnosticism (2127 – 2128). The agnostic does not deny God’s existence but concludes we cannot know anything about God if He does exist. In GS, Pope Paul VI groups atheism and agnosticism together, the former being those who deny God’s existence and the latter those who believe we can assert nothing about God (GS 19). Both the CCC and GS acknowledge that some atheists hate religion and seek to influence youth by gaining governmental power to promote atheism and fight against religion. Although the Church documents focus more on the reasons for atheism than defining it, the definition given is close to the OED definition: Atheism “rejects or denies the existence of God.”
4. Analysis (My Opinion)
As someone who would like to engage in reasoned discourse with atheists because I recognize that some atheists are open to it, I think it is unfortunate that the history of the word carries such disdain. In that respect, the distinction that Oppy makes seems helpful. There is a difference in denial or rejection (OED, CCC, GS definition) compared to failure to believe or disbelief (Oppy’s definition).
Denial or rejection implies that something is obvious but not accepted. For example, if I see a fork on the table, as does everyone else in the room, yet I say that the fork is not there, then I have denied the fork’s presence. I have rejected what is obvious to anyone who looks, and I either am being idiotically obstinate, or my eyes are defective. Something would be wrong with me.
On the contrary, per Oppy, if I say that I fail to believe or disbelieve something, then my meaning is different. I would not say that of a fork on the table because it wouldn’t make any sense. I know it is easily verifiable with my senses. Those words instead apply to a type of conclusion that at least some people do not find to be self-evident, a conclusion that some reach and others do not. If I fail to believe something, then I mean that I am not convinced. I have not succeeded in believing. This may be a permanent end point for some, but I think this statement conveys an openness to reasoned discourse. I would make one change though. It seems to me that “conclude” is a better word for Oppy’s meaning than “believe,” which is at risk for equivocation.*
I also understand where Catholics are coming from, but I think we can improve. In this sort of discussion, Catholics (including me) often cite Romans 1: 20. Here is the passage quoted in its context (verses 19-23) from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans.
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
This passage is specifically talking about idolators, those who see something yet reject it. But it is also true that not everyone sees nature and instantly sees God. I know I failed to see God in nature for years. St. Augustine tells a similar story in his Confessions of his eyes being opened to see God in creation. Getting back to definitions, it does not seem correct to assume that those who don’t see God are by default foolish or evil. At a minimum, we should find out which kind of atheist we are engaging. Reject and deny? Or fail to conclude and disbelieve?
I take it that Oppy means that atheists who fail to believe (conclude) there are gods do so because it is not self-evident to them. There are plenty of philosophical atheists today willing to discuss the arguments for causality, simplicity, and design. Those are not fork-on-the-table dereliction-of-duty scenarios. The discussion is a trajectory from a starting point toward an end where two people part ways for reasons they should try to articulate.
A final note to believers: we (I am one) have a responsibility to act in a way that reveals the true nature of God and religion, as Pope Paul VI said. I would go so far as to say we should stop attaching scorn to atheism, and especially to atheists themselves, and hear them out. The idea that atheism is “one of the most serious problems of our time” because many people do not understand the “intimate and vital bond of man to God” entails that we do better at showing what that looks like. I’m not trying to be all sanctimonious. Call it plain old people-skills. You just don’t convince anyone of anything by doubting their good intentions. Would you listen to someone who started out calling you vile, wicked, and dumb? I wouldn’t.
5. Feedback (Your Opinion)
Probably this has all been parsed before, but it’s where I’d like to start. Whether you are atheist or not, do you agree with the distinction between deny/reject and fail-to-believe/disbelief? Do you have a better way of defining “atheist” and “atheism”? Catholics and Christians, does this seem possible? To hear atheists out? Who knows? Maybe someone will even contact the OED and recommend updating the definition of “atheism.” That is how the history of language works, after all. Comments open.
*This is a topic of its own.
Sources
Oxford English Dictionary (atheist 1, atheist 2, atheism, atheal).
Graham Oppy, Atheism: The Basics (New York: Routledge, 2018).
Richard Dawkins, A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 150. “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in.”
Bo Jinn, Illogical Atheism: A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinker from a Lapsed Agnostic (Divided Line, 2013), 4.2. “To say atheism is not a religion is like saying anarchy is not really a political disposition.”
Baron D’holbach, Good Sense Without God or Freethoughts Opposed to Supernatural Ideas (London: W. Stewart & Co., 1772, 1900), § 30.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II (Holy See: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2019), 515-516.
Paul VI, Gaudium et spes On the Church in the Modern World, Vatican (07 December 1965).
Atheism is a very logical, subjective reaction to the wildly inconsistent, non nonsensical - sequitur
written by men about metaphysical unknowns. Had Moses or whomever composed Genesis, KNEW of evolution’s theoretical, scientific impact on humanities understanding of itself, there would be no such ugly entity as Original Sin. In the mind of atheists, good gods do not create a ‘vale of tears’ habitat then declare it all “good” – last time they saw it, anyway – then blame the mortal and defective species they created, holding the bag until they get around to sending a redeemer. This has nothing to do with a lack of faith on their part, but a ludicrous affront on the rational mind. In other words, change the narrative and you’d end up with at worse, a world of agnostics. To think for one moment that ‘atheists’ don’t draw upon hope and charity in their heart of hearts to get them through a day is to separate them from the DNA that binds us all.
Great article. I'm sympathetic to your analysis. Another great resource on this would be Paul Draper's (another leading defender of Atheism) article on Atheism and Agnosticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy where he writes:
"In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
Draper also further outlines why the "metaphysical definition" of Atheist out to be preferred over most common definitions, especially in the context of philosophy:
"The next question, then, is why the standard metaphysical definition of “atheism” is especially useful for doing philosophy. One obvious reason is that it has the virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Does God exist?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism in the metaphysical sense. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, and “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question (cf. Le Poidevin 2010: 8). It is useful for philosophers to have a good name for this important metaphysical position, and “atheism” works beautifully for that purpose. Of course, it may also be useful on occasion to have a term to refer to all people who lack theistic belief, but as noted above philosophers already have such a term, namely, “nontheist”, so the term “atheist” is not needed for that purpose."
Another point to add, I think it is instructive to think of beliefs in terms of probabilities, in that when someone says Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods, this doesn't entail that a person thinks that there are now 100% certain that no God exists. One reason that many people are hesitant to take on the philosophical understanding of Atheism is that they think it commits them to a very strong position on Atheism. But this is incorrect, to simply believe Atheism is true, is to say that you think it is more *probable than not* that Atheism is true, with the probabilities being different based on the strength of your Atheism. This view is pretty inclusive. For example, you can be someone like Oppy who thinks that the "Pr (T) [probability of Theism] ‘is so low that it approximates to zero’"
https://philosophy-of-religion.eu/index.php/ejpr/article/download/388/359/553
Or you could be a more temperate Atheist, who thinks that the epistemic probability of Atheism is about 60% or 65% true relative to the. The main thing is that belief in Atheism doesn't imply any measure of certainty and I think the same thing would apply to Theism as well.