I first came across Dawkins in the 1980’s when I first began reading books about the philosophy of science. The Selfish Gene is a brilliant book, popular science writing at its very best, explaining complex ideas with ease. It was the New York Times who classed it as ‘the sort of popular science writing that makes the reader feel like a genius.’

I have mixed feelings about Dawkins. He is clearly a top level scientist and a great writer. He is however a lousy philosopher and a lousy metaphysician. His anti religious rants are not derivable from his scientific evidence, rather they are merely piggybacked on his science and the impression is given that the one follows from the other. It does not. Since The Selfish Gene Dawkins has produced a number of other great books, but seemingly with each step has moved further away from the popular science genre and increasingly taken on the role of waging all out war against Religion. The great writer of popular science has become a savage anti-religious polemicist – preaching rather than arguing his case. In some senses he has become what he detests most.

Now I wouldn’t wish you to think that I am here to mount a knock down argument in the defence of religion. I am not. Much of what Dawkins argues – even at his worst – I can quite happily agree with. I probably agree with 99.9% of everything he writes. But at the core I am deeply unhappy with the fundamentals for which Dawkins argues. The case against God has not been proven. The case for scientific materialism has not been successful. Dawkins embraces everything he says with a materialist spin as if that is how evolution needs to be presented. It doesn’t. And the offensive part of Dawkins words is not the evolution but that materialist spin.

My second gripe with Dawkins is with his proposal for what we should do with the concept of God. He wishes to banish it from speech altogether so as not to give succour to those who he despises. He argues that scientists should cease giving acknowledgement to the God of Spinoza and of Einstein – The Rational God – because the ordinary reader confuses this Pantheist version with the Theist one. This is somewhat backward thinking. If scientists believe the concept is a valid one to have then they should not be browbeaten into naming it something else. Spinoza’s God is a clearly defined, internally consistent concept and can give us deep insights into the ultimate nature of existence.

In conclusion I would like to point out that Dawkins anti-religious views are not something which can be proven false by some scientific evidence. Yet neither are they self evident from the scientific facts as Dawkins generally assumes. The philosophical positions that Dawkins imports into his belief system are not the easiest to defend, and in the case of materialism are generally considered to be false by everyone. There are philosophical positions different to those of Richard Dawkins which can represent the scientific facts in an equally adequate way. For Dawkins to represent his philosophical viewpoint as scientific fact is disingenuous at best and anti scientific at worst.

I had intended to move on from atheism and theism and look at pantheism but I came across an article about atheism symbols and became intrigued.

I touched upon the definition of religion in an earlier post. Religion is not just having a belief in God but extends to include purpose and worship of artefacts, places or even symbols. Proudly displaying a symbol is a basic sign of religious behaviour and it seems the atheist community are scrambling around in an attempt to come to some agreement as to what that symbol might be.

An atheism symbol certainly takes atheists one step closer to becoming a religion. Whatever next? Soon we will see organised groups of atheists taking a pilgrimage to the Galapagos Islands in tribute to their founder. Will Galapagos become the New Jerusalem? An atheist location as a place of ultimate worship, hmm, another criterion ticked for what it is that defines a religious group.

The point I wish to make is the one concerning the candidates for the new atheism symbol. One serious candidate, and a symbol which I think has become popular as a bumper sticker in North America, is the Darwinian fish. For those who haven’t seen the Darwinian fish it is the same as the Christian fish, also popular on cars but the Darwinian fish has legs attached. Now I actually think that the Darwinian fish is funny on one level, but philosophically it is not very well thought out.

A second symbol I have noticed as a candidate for the symbol of atheism is a line diagram of an atom; three long ellipses, representing the paths of electrons, orbiting a central dot which is the nucleus. This is yet another poorly thought out symbol.

It is true that some theists deny evolution and in its place they promote creationism or something else which is equally unscientific. But you do not have to promote creationism in order to be a theist. It is quite possible to be a theist and accept evolution. Evolution has no bearing on the question of whether or not there is a God of theism. Only scientific ideas which are wrapped up in philosophical materialism can oppose theism. Some scientists have all too frequently been happy to peddle the notion that evolution is necessarily materialistic, but that assumption is false. Evolution can survive on its own without any requirement of a doctrine of materialism being attached. Materialism, for the record is a philosophical position which has no foundation in science and which should not and cannot be assumed to be true. If you assert materialism as a truth then you are in effect stating a belief. I am sure that peddling beliefs as fact was another candidate for what is required for an organisation to be considered a religious group!

The atomic symbol, as should be clear already, is expressing a symbol of matter or of materialism. It is not representative of any factual representation of the world. Rather it is more representative of a materialist doctrine which has no solid grounds to be believed over any other philosophical position. Both the Darwinian fish and the atomic symbol are not an expression of disbelief but expressions of belief in materialism.

The conclusion I am working to then is; if an atheist asserts that evolution demonstrates non-theism then he is misrepresenting the facts. Evolution does not necessarily deny theism. Evolution only denies those whacko theists who believe in creationism. Creationism is not a prerequisite, or a consequence of theistic belief. If the Darwinian fish is representing evolution as an idea that is wrapped in materialism, then the atheist is no longer someone who is merely negating a belief. The atheist has now become someone who is peddling a belief in a specific and non-provable philosophy. The atheism symbol therefore takes on the role of being an assertion of a belief, rather than the negation of a belief.

The adoption of a symbol may not in itself make any statement about the religious nature or otherwise of atheist groups. Adopting the Darwinian fish or the atomic diagram in the role of atheism symbol however probably does take the position of atheism one step closer to being a religious stance.

There are a number of ways that we can compare theism and atheism. In a debate that is increasingly politicised, in the USA at least, it is important to understand the objective or emotion of any person who is engaged in such a debate. This post is a brief look at the charge levelled against atheists that they too are expressing religiousness.

The simple view would be that to compare theism and atheism is trivial as one side (theism) offers a position of belief, whilst the other (atheism) counters with the negation or rejection of that belief. However, there are a number of different ways we can make a comparison particularly when we see either side stray from the real notion of what they are in fact supporting or denying.

Emphasised in earlier posts has been the point that theism is the assertion that there is a God who exists separately from the universe that he has created. Atheism is the denial of this claim. This is the “in a nutshell” definition of what theism and atheism entails.

Many theists and atheists assume that a belief in the theistic God also necessitates a belief in the literal interpretation of the bible. It does not. Other add-ons to the basic idea of theism could include the existence of miracles, the power of intervention, and a punishment regime in the afterlife or a requirement of selfless devotion. None of these things are a requirement for a belief in theism. They are only a requirement of some particular brands of theism. You can be a theist and still not adhere to any of the principles just outlined.

Atheism has its own set of baggage which some atheists and some theists assume is a part of the denial of theism. Again, they are not.

Two of the most oft claimed notions for atheism are materialism and a particular bunch of ethical (or lack of) ethical principles. Materialism is no more a requirement of atheism than literally interpreting the bible is a requirement of theism. Atheists can have any number of beliefs concerning the underlying structure of the universe. The only thing an atheist needs to assert is that there is no theistic God. The make up of the universe from there is a subject that has no bearing on atheism. If an atheist supports the concept of an immaterial mental realm then that is quite consistent with a lack of a belief in a theistic God. So is the negation of a realm of mental phenomena.

Similarly a denial of theism no more commits an atheist to any form of moral code, nor does an atheist need to be told that he lacks a moral code. A disbelief in the god of theism does not commit an atheist to anything; other than the denial of a god who exists as a separate entity to the universe that he has created.

We can further investigate and thus compare theism and atheism from the perspective of religion. Religion is often defined by our view of God or our belief system concerning God. If we attend closely to the detail of a definition of religion however we find that it is a very difficult idea to pin down.

For example, a mere belief in God can hardly be said to make one religious. If I state that I believe in God, yet take my belief no further, neither acting on that belief nor behaving in any manner different to an atheist say, can it be said that I am religious? I would say not. A mere belief is not enough to class a person as a religious person, even if we clarify the term ‘belief’ with the caveat that we mean belief in God. Beliefs in themselves are not enough to make a person religious, if they were then we would all be religious because we all have beliefs, and that would make the term vacuous.

There are other definitions of religion which are more interesting and revealing. One such idea of religion is embraced not by a set of beliefs concerning our worldview, but with regard to our commitment to such a view, measured in terms of our devotion, the time that it consumes and our insistence in what we express being correct above all else. Further the religious have a propensity to display symbols of their belief and to engage in artefact worship.

A football supporter might be said to follow his team religiously. He will display his teams’ colours or badge and perhaps view a special programme of a previous big game as a priceless artefact. The home ground of his favourite team becomes a place of worship. The attributes we expect to be displayed by the god worshipper can often be found expressed in a person who is devoted to any number of different things. The nature of religion is very difficult to define so that it applies only to theists.

So can an atheist ever be considered to be religious? If the definition of religion is given this broad feel then I think that it can; for example, the atheist who devotes a lot of time to promoting his view, or lack thereof. Who wears a spaghetti monster badge or bumper sticker and who dreams of making a pilgrimage to the Jerusalem of atheism, Galapagos. Finally the atheist who insists that science will at some future time explain everything or who insists that at some future time it will be proven that mental phenomena are fully reducible to matter. All of these things indicate a religiosity or blind purpose which is a manifestation of belief.

So when we compare theism and atheism, it is not just a comparison of the bare facts of each we should investigate. Theists who believe in a god who created the universe and who is a separate entity to that universe can be benign and not particularly religious. An atheist who denies theism but attaches a string of irrelevant ideas to his atheism whilst promoting his world view with zeal can manifest as more religious than the god believer. The dealing of the notions involved can be dealt with in a calm and rational way. It is those who become emotionally involved who tend to become religiously involved, and that kind of person can surface on both sides of the debate.

When we compare theism and atheism, the religious nature of the combatants is of interest. It is not merely the system of belief which dictates a person’s religiousness, but also the determination and emotional commitment which a person invests in to that belief. To that end, it is clear that some atheists can quite readily be classed as religious just as some theists could be viewed as irreligious.

The definitions of theism and atheism should both be very clear. Yet at times because of the heat of debate in which theism and atheism are discussed the real meaning of each becomes blurred. Dictionaries are often considered the arbiters of definition, though reaching for a dictionary should be a last resort. Dictionaries are not definers of words. Dictionaries list words and how they are used in common speech. As a philosopher it is quite legitimate to define ones own terms provided one is clear that is what you are doing. If a philosopher defines a term to have a specific meaning then the dictionaries definition is irrelevant. Should a philosophers use of a term become standard then it will be the dictionary that adapts to the new usage. It is not the public who adapt to a dictionary definition, rather the dictionary changes to how words are used.

Theism can be a difficult word to define because theists themselves have so many different ideas of what their theism entails. Not only are there three primary theist religions, there are a number of sub groups within each religion further diluting any notion of there being a clear and distinct definition.

Atheism is easy to define. Atheism is the belief that theism is false. But as that definition rests on our understanding of what theism entails we are back to the problem of seeking a clear definition of theism. So for the purpose of this blog I shall make clear precisely how I define the concept of theism and by default how atheism then becomes defined.

There are two basic principles that are common to most who profess a theistic belief.

• The first principle is that God is a distinctly separate entity from the rest of nature.
• The second principle is that God is the architect or creator of the universe or nature.

These two definitions are crucial to distinguish theism from deism or pantheism. Deism considers the deity to be a transcendent feature of the universe and pantheism is where God and nature are considered to be the same. In deism the universe is considered to be a part of God, in pantheism the universe is considered to be god. In theism then, a distinguishing idea is that god is distinct from the universe that he has created.

An atheist is someone who either rejects principle one or principle two, though usually an atheist is likely to reject both principles. A theist is not committed to believing anything else, though he probably will add a whole range of additional premises and ideas to embellish his belief network. An atheist is not required to disbelieve (or believe) anything else though many atheists will add on extra concepts to their world view and class it as an atheist perspective.

It is the embellishment of these definitions and the adding on of other ideas and principles that can lead to so much confusion and conflict within the debate. Some theists identify themselves as creationists for example, but that is the view of individual theists and not necessarily of theism in general. Some theists believe the universe was created in the last ten thousand years. Such a claim is not something that theism entails. Some theists may make that claim, but theism as a whole doesn’t. Proving the universe is 14 billion years old does not defeat theism. It only defeats those theists who claim the universe is much younger.

Atheism is a Broad Church

If atheism defines itself as the negation of theism, atheism becomes the home of all those who believe theism is false. Consequently any non-theist is by definition an atheist. Pantheists, Deists, Buddhists, Spiritualists, Pagans and everybody else who does not believe in theism should on this definition be classified as atheist. They have a belief in something other than theism, but few would call themselves atheist over and above or instead of referring to their beliefs as Buddhist or Deist for example.

Now this leads to the perplexing idea that atheists could actually hold God beliefs. Pantheists believe that there is a God who is identifiable with the universe as a whole for example. There are also non-theists who define themselves as say spiritualist. They may have the view that the universe is fundamentally spiritual though there is no theist god involved.

Somebody who calls himself an atheist is likely to reject pantheism and spiritualism. But in doing so that person is claiming more than merely the negation of theism. An atheist, who insists on rejecting pantheist and spiritual beliefs amongst others, is actually defining a specific philosophy within the broad church of atheism. They are usually supporting the position of materialism. Materialism is the view that all things are reducible to matter; that minds are no more than complex arrangements of molecules. Arguing for a specific position within the broad realm of atheism is very different from merely denying theism.

A material atheist then is not merely expressing a disbelief in theism; he is expressing a positive belief that science, one day, will demonstrate an explanation for mental phenomena in purely materialist terms. Such a position is not a negation of theism but a positive belief. Materialist atheism is a philosophical belief that expresses a definite view about the world and is not a necessary consequence of a denial of theism. Unfortunately all too frequently this fact is ignored.

In conclusion then we can define theism and atheism in a nutshell; theism is the belief that there is a God who is separate from the universe that He alone has created. Atheism is the position that there is no such God. Atheism entails no more than this.

Though Darwin didn’t casually forsake his religious faith, many of his scientific descendents have been much less reticent to equate evolutionary theory with atheism. Indeed, many theists see their religious belief system as incompatible with evolution; consequently the theism vs. atheism debate is often fought in the theory of evolution arena. This is unfortunate as the idea of evolution has no bearing on the claim that God does or does not exist. Evolution no more proves that God does not exist than gravitational theory.

Theism is at its most embarrassing and cringe worthiness when it adopts a contrary position to evolutionary theory. It plucks out of the air a ridiculous idea called creationism and subverts its own self by imposing the artificial claim on the bible that it is some kind of ancient scientific text. Any value that the bible has is immediately lost as it is used to propose an alternative unscientific account of the creation of the universe.

At a stroke, creationism turns what was once a sacred text into a competing scientific treatise. It was never the intention of the biblical authors to create a mundane scientific document, yet today that is what the most determined literalists insist it should be. If we are to view the bible as something which should be of scientific interest then we completely miss the intentions of the biblical writers.

The bible is constructed from a wide variety of sources. The bible expresses a variety of different genres. Some parts are historical, creedal or confessional. Other chapters are symbolic, mythical, poetic or devotional. There are many styles of writing in the bible but none of them, we can be sure, are scientific writings. Further we can be sure, that little, perhaps none of the work should be taken literally.

Literal truths seldom exist in any form. Any truth has to be placed into the context in which it is spoken, written or was intended to be applied. It is very difficult to find a truth that can be applied in all circumstances at all times for all men. To take one of the largest documents of all time and interpret it in a literal way is just nonsensical.

But the antagonism between theists and atheists cannot be blamed solely on the intransigence of the literalists. For many atheists, their lack of belief is rooted deeply in what has become known as scientific materialism; that all existence, mind, spirit and God can be explained by neuronal complexity. The argument goes that some future perfect science will one day prove that thought is nothing more than complex arrangements of matter. Despite the fact that materialism has been a discarded philosophy for about a century there are still those who wish to couch evolutionary theory in materialistic terminology.

Evolution is a scientific theory and does not require being couched in materialist dogma. Indeed, the atheist who takes this step is no longer just an atheist who has a disbelief in theism. The material atheist now has a positive belief which states that all things are reducible to the material. This is far removed from the benign “I do not believe in theism” that a mere atheist is committed to.

Stripped of the two incoherent extremes in the theism vs. atheism debate we find that the difference in opinion gets ever narrower. A theist who views the bible as a metaphoric aid to a deeper understanding of existence is committed to very little in terms of belief. An atheist who doesn’t get bogged down in a material interpretation of existence is quite able to adopt positions of the universe that contains ideas of the universal spirit or idealistic notions.

The acute or strong philosopher, will in debate, look at the opponents argument and shape that argument in to its strongest form. Where the debater fails to make his strongest case it is incumbent on his opponent to make that strongest case for him. That strongest position is the position that you demolish. In the theism vs. atheism debate, all too frequently the protagonists attempt to demolish only the weakest positions of their opponents. The atheist will only attack the literalists; the theists will only attack the materialists.

Stripped of its unnecessary materialist veneer, atheism can mean a wide variety of things. Stripped of its scriptural literalism, theism can also be relatively broad. Though there is probably clear daylight between the two positions the difference between the non-material atheists and the metaphorical theists is far less than some would have you believe.

Over the next few posts I shall look more closely at atheism, theism and pantheism and attempt to identify their similarities and their most crucial differences.