Today, my friends, I’d like to speak
Of atheism, strong and weak—
Of godless views both weak and strong
Which might be right? Which may be wrong?

Weak atheists, they tell me, don’t
Believe in gods. They can’t. They won’t.
But still, they can’t and won’t insist
A god cannot, must not, exist

Strong atheists will make the claim
There is no god to call by name
They do not think it overbroad
To outright claim “there is no god”

But that’s the thing; the Christian horde
Believing in their Christian lord
Are atheists, cos what is more,
They strongly disbelieve in Thor

So, wait—do they believe, or not?
In just one god, or in the lot?
Belief, you see, is quite specific
While non-belief is, well… prolific

Believe in twenty, or in one,
But disbelief, you’re stuck at none
There really is no symmetry
In god belief or not, you see

So, yeah, I read yet another post somewhere (here, specifically) that used the “strong versus weak atheism” construction, which I despise. I don’t blame the site I read, of course–the strong/weak distinction is everywhere. I’ve complained about it before.

Strong and weak imply points on a single continuum; the positions labeled strong atheism and weak atheism are not stronger or weaker versions of each other. Both have precisely the same amount of god-belief: none. But a positive assertion (either belief or disbelief) is necessarily restricted to a given, particular god. We do not claim that “believers” believe in every god; their belief is specific to their particular deity. When they ask “do you believe in god?”, they are asking this for the case where god = their god. Active belief in their god is often (usually?) accompanied by active disbelief in other gods (or simply denial of those gods’ existence). Disbelief–even active, positive, disbelief–in any one god, then, is clearly not sufficient to label someone an atheist. There is a world of difference between one and zero.

The difference between strong and weak atheists has nothing to do with their comparative belief in a god or gods. Both are at zero. As for other beliefs… we all vary tremendously on a wide spectrum of beliefs. There is no set of beliefs that reliably separates two categories of atheists, without either overlap or leftovers, and without also covering a wide number of religious believers as well.

I posit, not for the first time, that the terms “strong atheist” and “weak atheist” are not useful, and indeed obfuscate where they intend to clarify.

There’s no reason to think that we’re better
There’s no reason to think that we’re worse
There’s no reason to think we’ve been chosen
Or are damned by some ultimate curse
There’s no call to put faith in the Torah
Or in any or all of its sequels
And without such a misguided compass
We are free to treat others as equals.

There’s no reason to think there is magic
There’s no need for an ultimate cause
There’s no need for some stellar mechanic
Who’s unburdened by natural laws
There’s no need to infer a creator
Looking on as creation unfurled
And without all those misguided questions
We are free to examine the world.

So today’s title comes from a bit of musing on a religious blog–they don’t have comments there, so I had to write here.

The author starts out largely in agreement with me. He defines (for purposes of this essay) atheism as the privative, the empty category of faith systems, the “none of the above“. It is a “lack of belief”. (The author notes that this view clearly does not encompass all of atheist thought–including things like atheism plus in his additional examples. He is addressing only the “lack of belief” view.) He points out that this non-belief, while it may be associated with any number of positive beliefs, is not itself a positive belief at all.

And this is true. But then, he makes some judgments that are poorly framed.

Atheism Is Not Pro-Reason or Pro-Science
This point is just a clarification of the prior section. Because atheism cannot offer support for any positive belief, atheism is not intrinsically pro-reason or pro-science. Individual atheists might be in favor of reason or science, but they are not in favor of reason or science because of their atheism.

True. More on this later.

Atheism is Not Morally Progressive
If atheism cannot offer support for any other belief, then atheists may or may not value the abolition of slavery, gay marriage, equal pay for women, abortion, communism, and greedy Wall Street bankers.

Also true. And more on this later as well.

Atheism Is A Comfortable Belief
Christians are often accused of believing in God because it is such a comfortable belief system, especially when we consider death.

Note, this stands in opposition to the recent “Where are the honest atheists?” moaners and groaners. Atheism, if the author is going to be consistent, cannot be seen as either comfortable or uncomfortable.

It depends on what you are comparing to. Ay, there’s the rub. Atheism is a comfortable belief, if you compare it to the notion of original sin, fallen humanity, and grace only at the whim of a deity known for death, destruction, and the threat of eternal punishment for simply not worshipping Him. And not, if you compare it to the notion of psalm 23.

But then, let’s be consistent. Atheism is not pro-reason or pro-science… unless our standard of comparison is religion, in which case, religion’s giant step back leaves atheism looking quite pro-science by comparison. And atheism is not morally progressive, unless our standard of comparison is religion once more.

Conclusion: “Atheism” Is Unworthy of Our Respect
Because this kind of atheism is such an impoverished position, unable to establish any other beliefs, and unable to support a pro-reason, pro-science, morally progressive worldview, it does not deserve our respect. Furthermore, because this atheism is clearly appealing to people who want to live selfishly, and not necessarily for the good of others, this “lack of belief” is not worthy of anyone’s respect.

As a Christian, I believe that every human being is made in the image of God, and that Jesus died out of love for every human being, and that God offers forgiveness to all who trust in Christ for salvation. Christianity ought to lead me to respect every person, which most certainly includes these atheists. So I believe in treating all people with respect.

Even though he concludes atheism is not worthy of our respect. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It’s the idea of atheism that is bankrupt, but even heathens deserve respect. Mind you, the notion of atheism being appealing to people who want to live selfishly does not stand up to scrutiny–witness any number of counter-examples from prosperity gospel to the recent study of religious beliefs of criminals justifying their actions (Jesus forgives all!). And mind you, “unable to establish any other beliefs” does not mean “incompatible with other beliefs”. The often-cited fact that there are scientists who are christians has been used to argue that christianity and science are compatible. Well, they are, if you compartmentalize; atheism, even “lack of belief only” atheism, need not even be compartmentalized. It is perfectly compatible with a pro-reason, pro-science, morally progressive worldview.

There are times when it is better to start out from nothing, when the alternative is worse. Better to avoid making up answers to questions, and to avoid making up questions that can’t be answered, than to take bold steps in the wrong direction.

Atheism, as just a lack of belief in god, doesn’t have much going for it (which is why we have A+, and humanism, and naturalism, and more). But at least it’s not actively telling lies and doing harm. And that makes it a better starting-off place than religion.

So apparently Frank Newport (editor-in-chief of Gallup Poll, and recently author of God is alive and well: the future of religion in America) gave his book talk in Madison, NJ, and included a line he’s been using for some time: “There are no atheists in retirement homes.”

My mother-in-law is an atheist
In a southern retirement home
She reads Dawkins and Hitchens, and Dennett and Krauss,
And she sends me her thoughts on each tome
She’s a volunteer, there, with the hospice
So she sits with her friends when they die
Since she has no illusions she’ll see them in heaven
She just wants to tell them “goodbye”
She’s aware that her days must be numbered
And that death will arrive for her, too
I suspect, if she met with Frank Newport one day
That she’d happily tell him… fuck you!

Yeah, actually, every bit of this one is true. She sends me clippings from atheist articles in the news, was practically giddy when she heard about the Brights (I think she’s a card-carrying member), and read God Is Not Great before I did (actually, she sent me her copy when she finished).

On the other hand, she is a staunch Republican who favored prayer in public schools because Reagan did.

I think she has been an atheist for as long as I have known her. I’m not certain, though–I know that she has, in contrast to Newport’s expert opinion, become more vocal in her atheism over the years, in part because she no longer feels obliged to keep her opinions to herself. Once you have a certain number of decades under your belt, in her view, you have earned the right to speak your mind.

Newport insinuates that the fear of death–whether in nursing homes, or in the foxholes his quip borrows from–drives religious belief. I have to say, very few outside of particular professions are more familiar with death than my mother in law. She has been a hospice volunteer for decades now, becoming friends with people she knew were going to die. Many, many times she was the only one–not family, not clergy–to stay with them in their final hours. My mother in law has no illusions about mortality.

The wording of a poll has tremendous influence over the answers that are given (I’ve written before about a researcher who claimed that Americans were very accepting of atheists… but his research chose not to use the term “atheist” because so many people were put off by the very word); it seems clear that Newport has A) a chip on his shoulder and B) a book to sell, when it comes to counting atheist numbers.

I know it was only a rhetorical exaggeration, but a universal claim is disproven by even a single example. My mother in law’s existence is sufficient to prove Newport wrong. But I want more… I want the two of them in a cage match. Newport doesn’t stand a chance.

The New York Times is hosting a bit of a debate, with views from folks like Penn Jillette and Jason Torpy, as well as frustratingly misguided writers who prefer unsolved religious mystery.

It’s worth the read, if only to reinforce how good the quality of some of the thinking and writing is here at FtB. So go, comment at the Times, and tell them Cuttlefish sent you.

Is my disbelief a blessing?
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.
It depends on what is stressing
Me, and how my struggles go.
I have no need for confessing,
“Asking God” is much too slow
Since it’s just the same as guessing
While I bow my head just so
I am glad no god is messing
With my actions just for show
And I think it’s worth expressing
When the time is apropos.

Sorry, that was just a quick little nothing, in order to talk about this opinion piece by Susan Jacoby at the New York Times, “The Blessings of Atheism”. It’s a very pro-atheism piece (as well it should be, with Jacoby a proudly “out” atheist), prompted by the Newtown shootings (or, more precisely, prompted by a conversation that was prompted by the shootings), and the observation that consolation in times of grief is seen as wholly the jurisdiction of those with faith.

I, of course, disagree (and have written about it elsewhere), but agree with Jacoby that this view appears ubiquitous in the media. We are called to renew our faith, perhaps precisely because such events (as they should) shake the belief in a loving god to its very foundation.

IT is primarily in the face of suffering, whether the tragedy is individual or collective, that I am forcefully reminded of what atheism has to offer. When I try to help a loved one losing his mind to Alzheimer’s, when I see homeless people shivering in the wake of a deadly storm, when the news media bring me almost obscenely close to the raw grief of bereft parents, I do not have to ask, as all people of faith must, why an all-powerful, all-good God allows such things to happen.

It is a positive blessing, not a negation of belief, to be free of what is known as the theodicy problem. Human “free will” is Western monotheism’s answer to the question of why God does not use his power to prevent the slaughter of innocents, and many people throughout history (some murdered as heretics) have not been able to let God off the hook in that fashion.

Mind you, I wouldn’t have written the same piece Jacoby does (for one thing, hers is shockingly lacking in doggerel rhyme, and for another, our personal journeys are of course different), but it is well worth the read, and it is a breath of fresh air to see in the mainstream media (although, of course, it will be dismissed by a great many precisely because it is in that liberal bastion, the NY Times).