One of the perennial arguments between atheists and theists (especially Christians and very especially evangelical Christians) is whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion. Theists say that not believing in God qualifies just as much as a belief as believing in God. Atheists say that atheism is a lack of belief, and therefore does not qualify as a belief system at all, making it a lack of religion. Ultimately though, everyone involved in this argument is wrong in some way. The problem is that the English language (as well as many European languages) hides the truth.
The language problem that causes the confusion in this debate is the difference between active and passive negatives. English lacks a general purpose active negative. To compensate for this, we often use the passive negative, "not," as an active negative, and we understand it as an active or passive negative based on context. For example, I can say, "I don't like coffee." Because the "not" in "don't" is a passive negative, this phrase does not imply that I dislike coffee. It merely states that I don't particularly like it. English speakers will infer that it means I dislike coffee though. Now, there are special purpose active negatives, for example "dislike." These are limited to specific applications though, and there is not always an appropriate active negative for a given application. So instead, we infer "not" to be an active negative in many contexts where it makes sense.
This applies very directly to the above mentioned atheism argument. The problem with the argument is that "not" is being used ambiguously, and each side is inferring what they need it to mean to support their argument. The atheists are correct when they say that "not believing in God" is not a belief system. The theists are inferring the "not" in the phrase means specifically disbelief, not just lack of belief. They are wrong in this, as "not" is a passive negative, not an active negative. The atheists are wrong in claiming that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God. The ambiguity in the interpretation of the word "not" is convenient to the arguments of both sides, but it also makes them both wrong.
There is already a word for "not believing in God." That word is "agnosticism." Agnostics are apathetic to the existence of God. They do not claim that He does not exist, but they do not choose to believe in Him either. When a person says, "I don't believe in God," they are saying that they are agnostic. When atheists say that, they mean that they disbelieve in God, not that they are apathetic to His existence. The meaning of the words they are saying is different from what they intend those words to mean, but it makes a convenient argument to misconstrue their intending meaning when they are trying to prove that atheism is not a belief system. When an atheist says, "I do not believe in God," what they mean is that they disbelieve in God or that they believe that God does not exist. When you look at the root meaning, where "not" is being used as an active negative in the phrase, "I do not believe in God," it becomes very clear that atheism is indeed a belief system, not merely a lack of belief.
When atheists argue that atheism is not a belief system, they are deliberately confusing agnosticism with atheism to support their argument. Ultimately, both sides are confused by the lack of a general purpose active negative in English and related languages, and to be honest, most people that do not know a language that contains a general purpose active negative may never realize that this is a problem.
What the whole thing comes down to though, is that atheism is a belief system. Whether it is a religion or not is another matter entirely, as this depends largely on how "religion" is defined. If it is defined as a belief system, then atheism is a religion (as well as anti-vax, essential oils, and a whole range of other minor belief systems). If religion requires some kind of deity, then it is only a belief system if you can show that secularism is a deity. If it merely requires a higher power (with or without sentience), belief in science would be sufficient to make it a religion. In the end, the question of whether or not atheism is a religion is still subject to debate, but there is no question that it is a belief system.
No comments:
Post a Comment