It is commonly assumed that atheism is the belief that there is no God,
and that an atheist is someone who believes there is no God.

For some time now atheists have been in need of firm grounds upon
which to base their position.

atheism also entails secular humanism, the belief that human beings
must determine their own purpose for life and must solve their own
problems.

atheists cannot legitimately place the burden of proof exclusively on

Western civilization for about 1600 years, and they therefore bear
some burden of proof to show that there is no transcendent God
responsible for the existence and nature of the world and for the
existence and meaning of human life.

http://tertius.blogspot.com/2004/10/new-atheism.html

Given this basic worldview in which the natural cosmos is all that
exists and yet human life is held to be meaningful and purposeful,

atheists cannot legitimately place the burden of proof exclusively on
the theist. The modern atheist espouses a worldview in conscious
opposition to the theistic worldview that has dominated Western
civilization for about 1600 years, and they therefore bear some burden
of proof to show that there is no transcendent God responsible for the
existence and nature of the world and for the existence and meaning of
human life.

http://tertius.blogspot.com/2004/10/new-atheism.html


No God at All: Western Humanism and the New Atheism


It is commonly assumed that atheism is the belief that there is no God,
and that an atheist is someone who believes there is no God. Most
atheists, however, reject these definitions. They point out that the term
atheism derives from the Greek a (not, without) and theos (God, god), and
conclude that atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in a God or
gods. That is, an atheist does not necessarily deny the existence of a
God, but simply has no belief in the existence of a God. George Smith, for
example, asserts that in this sense both the man who has never heard of
the concept of God, and the child who is too young to grasp the concept,
are atheists. This claim is an old one: the eighteenth-century atheist
Baron D'Holbach wrote, All children are atheists, they have no idea of
God.

Atheists wish to secure two benefits from this redefinition of the term
atheism. First, by defining it as the lack of a belief, rather than a
belief itself, they wish to render atheism impervious to criticism. One
cannot criticize a non-position! On this basis atheists frequently dismiss
out of hand all claims that atheism is a dangerous or corrupt philosophy,
since it is not a philosophy at all, but merely the lack of a particular
philosophical concept. Second, atheists commonly argue that since they
lack a belief while theists are adhering to and promoting their belief,
the burden of proof rests fully on the theist to make a case for belief in
God. That is, the atheist has nothing to justify, no belief to defend or
substantiate; the burden of providing justification or evidence rests
solely on the theist. An atheist is in the same position as someone who
lacks belief in elves - they have nothing to prove and no need to defend
their belief, while the person who does believe in elves is obliged, if he
wants anyone else to take his belief seriously, to provide some rational
justification for that belief. This is what Antony Flew, one of the
leading atheist philosophers of the twentieth century, called the
presumption of atheism.

The claim that atheism is not a position that needs to be defended is
rather odd, and strangely contradicted by atheists themselves. Take, for
example, B. C. Johnson, who repeats the standard claim that because
atheists merely have a lack of belief in God, they are not offering any
explanation of things which needs to be justified. Yet this claim comes on
the heels of the following statement about the purpose of his book: For
some time now atheists have been in need of firm grounds upon which to
base their position. George Smith actually entitles his book Atheism: The
Case Against God, which obviously implies that atheism is a position that
rejects belief in God.

The attempt to defend their unusual definition of atheism by etymology
misunderstands how the word was formed. Traditionally the term has been
construed as athe-ism, that is, the belief (-ism) that there is no God
(athe-), rather than as a-theism, the mere absence or lack of belief in
God. It is silly to define atheism in such a way that not only babies
(as is commonly claimed), but also animals and even inanimate objects,
would qualify as atheists - since all of these lack belief in God! When
atheists are not worrying about the definition, they commonly speak of
themselves as atheists with the clear understanding that the term refers
to people who have rejected the concept of God.

Of course, most atheists do not claim to know with certainty that there
is no God. Flew, for instance, is eager to say that atheists are not
"bigoted dogmatists" who are closed to the idea of God. Such dogmatic
atheism would leave itself wide open to the objection that one would
have to be omniscient to know that there was no God - so that in effect
one would have to be God to know there was no God!

Although atheists often deny espousing such a dogmatic atheism, they
frequently do end up asserting in quite dogmatic terms that God does not
or even cannot exist. George Smith, for example, writes, It is logically
impossible for god - a concept replete with absurdities and
contradictions - to have a referent in reality, just as it is logically
impossible for a square circle to exist. Given the attempts to define
god, we may now state - with certainty - that god does not exist. This
is actually a fairly common sentiment in the atheist literature. The
nineteenth-century atheist Annie Besant, for example, admitted that to
say "There is no God" would be irrational because it would be asserting
"a universal negative" which would require "perfect knowledge" to
justify. But it turns out that Besant allowed for the possibility of a
God unknown to her only if it is a finite entity in some unknown place
(say, "on the far side of Sirius"). If that God is said to be an
infinite being, she argued that such a God cannot exist because the
assertion of an infinite God is a "universal affirmative" that is
contradicted by the existence of anything (such as oneself) that is not
God.

Besant's argument, of course, misunderstands what theists mean by
describing God as "infinite." They mean, not that God is everything
(which would be pantheism, not theism), but that he is unbounded by
finite limitations of matter, energy, space, or time. In other words,
God is incorporeal, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. These
characteristics imply that God is not part of the universe and therefore
is a concrete being distinct from everything else. Thus Besant's denial
of an infinite God really is a universal negative after all.

Atheism, then, is a position which is often presented in a remarkably
double-minded way. Atheists claim not to have any belief about God, but

then vigorously deny that God could exist. Atheists deny that atheism is
a position that can or needs to be defended, but then offer arguments in
defense of atheism. Again, George Smith illustrates this philosophical

schizophrenia in unmistakable fashion. After arguing that atheism is not
a position or belief but a mere lack of belief in a god, he changes
gears in order to explain why atheism is significant: If atheism is
correct, man is alone. There is no god to think for him, to watch out
for him, to guarantee his happiness. These are the sole responsibility
of man. It is clear here that atheism is a philosophy, or at least a
basic worldview, after all. It is not merely a lack of belief in certain
postulated entities (like elves) but a view of the world as
self-existent and self-explanatory and of human life as
self-determining. Atheism is the belief that man is alone, that is, that
the living beings in this universe must fend for themselves because
there is no transcendent Creator or other supernatural beings to help
them or to hold them accountable for how they live.

Atheism therefore entails naturalism, the belief - as Carl Sagan
famously put it, The COSMOS is all there is, all there was, and all
there ever will be. For most atheists, atheism also entails secular
humanism, the belief that human beings must determine their own purpose
for life and must solve their own problems. For an atheist, the only
alternative to some such humanism is nihilism, the belief that life has
no purpose or meaning. While nihilism is a reasonable inference from
atheism, most atheists resist nihilism and argue for what Antony Flew
calls Atheistic Humanism: a positive philosophy of life that embraces
life as meaningful despite the lack of any divinely created purpose for
the human race. This is the philosophy of the Humanist Manifesto I
(1933), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and the Secular Humanist
Declaration (1980).

Given this basic worldview in which the natural cosmos is all that
exists and yet human life is held to be meaningful and purposeful,
atheists cannot legitimately place the burden of proof exclusively on
the theist. The modern atheist espouses a worldview in conscious
opposition to the theistic worldview that has dominated Western
civilization for about 1600 years, and they therefore bear some burden
of proof to show that there is no transcendent God responsible for the
existence and nature of the world and for the existence and meaning of
human life.

Kenneth Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

Given this basic worldview in which the natural cosmos is all that
exists and yet human life is held to be meaningful and purposeful,
atheists cannot legitimately place the burden of proof exclusively on
the theist. The modern atheist espouses a worldview in conscious
opposition to the theistic worldview that has dominated Western
civilization for about 1600 years, and they therefore bear some burden
of proof to show that there is no transcendent God responsible for the
existence and nature of the world and for the existence and meaning of
human life.

http://tertius.blogspot.com/2004/10/new-atheism.html


No God at All: Western Humanism and the New Atheism


It is commonly assumed that atheism is the belief that there is no God,
and that an atheist is someone who believes there is no God. Most
atheists, however, reject these definitions.

term atheism derives from the Greek a (not, without) and theos (God,
god), and conclude that atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief
in a God or gods.

existence of a God, but simply has no belief in the existence of a God.

George Smith, for example, asserts that in this sense both the man who
has never heard of the concept of God, and the child who is too young
to grasp the concept, are atheists. This claim is an old one: the
eighteenth-century atheist Baron D'Holbach wrote, All children are
atheists, they have no idea of God.

Atheists wish to secure two benefits from this redefinition of the term
atheism. First, by defining it as the lack of a belief, rather than a
belief itself, they wish to render atheism impervious to criticism.

dismiss out of hand all claims that atheism is a dangerous or corrupt
philosophy, since it is not a philosophy at all, but merely the lack of
a particular philosophical concept.

that since they lack a belief while theists are adhering to and
promoting their belief, the burden of proof rests fully on the theist
to make a case for belief in God. That is, the atheist has nothing to
justify, no belief to defend or substantiate; the burden of providing
justification or evidence rests solely on the theist. An atheist is in
the same position as someone who lacks belief in elves - they have
nothing to prove and no need to defend their belief, while the person
who does believe in elves is obliged, if he wants anyone else to take
his belief seriously, to provide some rational justification for that
belief. This is what Antony Flew, one of the leading atheist
philosophers of the twentieth century, called the presumption of
atheism.

The claim that atheism is not a position that needs to be defended is
rather odd, and strangely contradicted by atheists themselves.

for example, B. C. Johnson, who repeats the standard claim that because
atheists merely have a lack of belief in God, they are not offering any
explanation of things which needs to be justified.

on the heels of the following statement about the purpose of his book:
For some time now atheists have been in need of firm grounds upon which
to base their position.

The attempt to defend their unusual definition of atheism by etymology
misunderstands how the word was formed. Traditionally the term has been
construed as athe-ism, that is, the belief (-ism) that there is no God
(athe-), rather than as a-theism, the mere absence or lack of belief in
God. It is silly to define atheism in such a way that not only babies
(as is commonly claimed), but also animals and even inanimate objects,
would qualify as atheists - since all of these lack belief in God!

When atheists are not worrying about the definition,

speak of themselves as atheists with the clear understanding that the
term refers to people who have rejected the concept of God.

Of course, most atheists do not claim to know with certainty that there
is no God.

"bigoted dogmatists" who are closed to the idea of God. Such dogmatic
atheism would leave itself wide open to the objection that one would
have to be omniscient to know that there was no God - so that in
effect one would have to be God to know there was no God!
Although atheists often deny espousing such a dogmatic atheism, they
frequently do end up asserting in quite dogmatic terms that God does
not or even cannot exist.

logically impossible for god - a concept replete with absurdities and
contradictions - to have a referent in reality, just as it is
logically impossible for a square circle to exist. Given the attempts
to define god, we may now state - with certainty - that god does
not exist.

literature.

admitted that to say "There is no God" would be irrational because it
would be asserting "a universal negative" which would require "perfect
knowledge" to justify.

possibility of a God unknown to her only if it is a finite entity in
some unknown place (say, "on the far side of Sirius"). If that God is
said to be an infinite being, she argued that such a God cannot exist
because the assertion of an infinite God is a "universal affirmative"

that is contradicted by the existence of anything (such as oneself)
that is not God.

Besant's argument, of course, misunderstands what theists mean by
describing God as "infinite." They mean, not that God is everything
(which would be pantheism, not theism), but that he is unbounded by
finite limitations of matter, energy, space, or time.

God is incorporeal, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. These
characteristics imply that God is not part of the universe and
therefore is a concrete being distinct from everything else. Thus
Besant's denial of an infinite God really is a universal negative
after all.

Atheism, then, is a position which is often presented in a remarkably
double-minded way.

then vigorously deny that God could exist. Atheists deny that atheism
is a position that can or needs to be defended, but then offer
arguments in defense of atheism. Again, George Smith illustrates this
philosophical schizophrenia in unmistakable fashion.

atheism is not a position or belief but a mere lack of belief in a god,
he changes gears in order to explain why atheism is significant: If
atheism is correct, man is alone. There is no god to think for him, to
watch out for him, to guarantee his happiness. These are the sole
responsibility of man. It is clear here that atheism is a philosophy,
or at least a basic worldview, after all. It is not merely a lack of
belief in certain postulated entities (like elves) but a view of the
world as self-existent and self-explanatory and of human life as
self-determining. Atheism is the belief that man is alone, that is,
that the living beings in this universe must fend for themselves
because there is no transcendent Creator or other supernatural beings
to help them or to hold them accountable for how they live.

Atheism therefore entails naturalism, the belief - as Carl Sagan
famously put it, The COSMOS is all there is, all there was, and all
there ever will be. For most atheists, atheism also entails secular
humanism, the belief that human beings must determine their own purpose
for life and must solve their own problems. For an atheist, the only
alternative to some such humanism is nihilism, the belief that life has
no purpose or meaning.

atheism,

calls Atheistic Humanism: a positive philosophy of life that embraces
life as meaningful despite the lack of any divinely created purpose for
the human race. This is the philosophy of the Humanist Manifesto I
(1933), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and the Secular Humanist
Declaration (1980).

Given this basic worldview in which the natural cosmos is all that
exists and yet human life is held to be meaningful and purposeful,
atheists cannot legitimately place the burden of proof exclusively on
the theist.

opposition to the theistic worldview that has dominated Western
civilization for about 1600 years, and they therefore bear some burden
of proof to show that there is no transcendent God responsible for the
existence and nature of the world and for the existence and meaning of
human life.