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.

The process of science is undertaken through two similar but distinct paths; verification and falsification. The two, though different, have more similarities than they have differences. Verification and falsification are based on two strands of knowing something; these are empirical data and rationality.

Empirical knowledge is basically that knowledge which is presented to our senses. Direct empirical knowledge is generally considered reliable and so is a route to knowledge. If I can report that there is a white thing in front of me that appears to have the characteristics of a wall, then it is reasonable to assume that I am standing in front of a wall.
Taking a step away from this direct knowledge does lead us away from certainty. For example, if I was to claim that yesterday I had a wall experience then I am adding another category of explanation to my wall experience, that of memory. A remembered experience is not as reliable as a current experience. But a current sensory experience is one of the best and most reliable chunks of knowledge that we can have.

The Logic of Science

Rational knowledge tends to depend on things that are logically true and which could be no other way. One plus one equals two is a logical truth. The law of excluded middle, “All objects of a certain type have attribute x, or all objects of a certain type do not have attribute x.” is a logical truth.

For example ‘all pigs have four legs’ is either true or not true. If we find a pig that does not have four legs then the statement is false. But we can be sure that all pigs either have four legs or do not have four legs, because if they do then they do, and if they don’t then they don’t. Either way; they do have four legs or they do not have four legs; there is no middle ground.

Two sides of the Same Coin

Verification and falsification are each based on empirical data and rational argument though each places a different emphasis on one side of this equation over the other. Verification demands that any scientific hypothesis be confirmable through the senses. So important is the idea of verification that any statement which cannot be examined via the senses is dismissed as nonsensical. The scientific verificationist would therefore go out into the world, make an observation and then construct a theory based on that observation.

The falsificationist would take an approach which could be considered to be the reverse of this. Falsification requires that an idea be put into a theoretical postulate which is assumed to be a candidate for truth. The postulate has to be capable of being falsified. The process then necessitates the scientist designing an experiment which is capable of disproving the hypothesis. If the hypothesis stands up against the experiment it is not considered to be true, merely a candidate for truth.

The more experiments the hypothesis defeats the more that hypothesis is considered to be a candidate for truth. It will never reach the status of being thought of as a truth. With falsification nothing advances past the idea of being a theory, though something could be highly rated as a good theory.

Simply put then, in verification the observation comes first and the theory develops out of the observation. In falsification the theory comes first and our observations are manufactured in an attempt to disprove our theory.

Two complimentary Approaches

Which should we prefer between verification and falsification? Science can provide examples from history where both have proven to be successful routes to knowledge. Often the methodology used was more a matter of luck or circumstance rather than something that was considered beforehand. If someone has a good theoretical idea then he will design an experiment to test that theory. This would make him a practitioner of falsification. But through experiment the scientist spots an anomaly in his theory and adjusts that theory because of what he observed. He is now verifying his observation.
Another scientist might have noticed something in nature and designed a theory around that observation. The point is it is often only after the science has been completed that we are in a position to claim that the road to truth was through the process of verification or the process of falsification.

How God Can Be Scientific!

So how does this impinge on the theme of this blog? This blog, being concerned with the ideas of atheism, pantheism and theism, and the universe as a whole, seeks to place the theories of each under the scrutiny of verification and falsification.

The verificationist would view theism and say that it was meaningless. There is no empirical data for the scientist to work on so the notion of God is no more than a meaningless construct of the human mind.
The falsification approach would be a little less condemnatory. It would accept the hypothesis of a God as a theory but then would insist that the theory be expressed in a form that is falsifiable. The God theory then needs to be put into a hypothesis which the scientist can attempt to falsify. If the hypothesis cannot be formulated as a falsifiable proposition then it doesn’t rank as a valid scientific hypothesis.

The theist therefore needs to present his best idea of what God is; describe His nature, His attributes how He works and then it is up to the scientists to attempt to disprove the hypothesis. The theist unfortunately seldom presents a satisfactory description of what God is. When a hypothesis is presented it often collapses through its own internal inconsistency. The theistic god never manages to pass any test of logical consistency. The atheist has therefore a very strong case for her position that theism is false.

The pantheist on the other hand can describe a God that is internally consistent. Pantheism is a very strong, often scientifically based idea which roots the god hypothesis into the idea of nature or the universe as a whole. The pantheist god is capable of being expressed in both verifiable and falsifiable terms. It can even be considered to be a metaphoric interpretation of the theist god. As is one theme in these posts, the theists of the world have a very serious and insurmountable position if they which to interpret their doctrines literally. Their ancient texts are only of any meaning in the light of the interpretation of those texts being metaphorical.

What we can assume however is that our rational and sensory faculties do give us a route to knowledge. Standing testimony to this fact are the scientific achievements over the last four hundred years. Whether we wish to point to skyscrapers, bridges, washing machines, computers or landing on the moon, we can be sure that the knowledge we have is knowledge that comes with a high degree of certainty. And that certainty has its roots in the soil of our sensory experience and rational capabilities. We have every reason to be trusting in those faculties.

Gifts From God

If God does exist then, we can thank him for these two wonderful gifts. What else could we consider to be greater gifts than sensory experience and the ability to reason? They are truly remarkable gifts. Further if it is the case that these are marvellous gifts then it is incumbent on us to use those gifts in a way that does justice to them. It is not for us to pick and choose where and when we use them. They are there for us to use to their full capability at all times. It is the gifts of rationality and sensory experience that truly enables us to interact with God’s creation in an intelligent way. It is not for us to decide to ignore that ability.

The argument then is clear. God has given us sensory and rational abilities. They are the method by which we can gain the greatest understanding of God’s kingdom. By failing to use our God given faculties we allow ourselves to be led astray from the path of truth. By failing to use our God given faculties we permit the possibility that charlatans and fraudsters will deceive us.

If God does exist, He will be discovered through rational and empirical endeavours. No rational god would create us with such precious faculties and then ask us not to use them to uncover ultimate truths. Verification and falsification are the two proven methods of uncovering reality. There may be a place for faith and in the life of humans, but they have no place in understanding or in knowledge.

The hypothesis of a pantheist God and the metaphoric description are two of the themes that are examined in TheRationalGod. The Rational God is a complete scientific description of the universe and expands in greater detail on the themes in this blog.

It is often claimed that physics and God are attempts at explaining the same thing. That thing is the universe. The four big questions of existence are: “Why are the laws of nature what they are? Why does the universe consist of the things it does? How did those things arise? How did the universe achieve its organization?” Physics and God are both used as methods to answer these four questions.

In my previous post I touched on the issue of pre-Christian beliefs and made the point that Pagans were very disposed to truth seeking. The Ancient Greeks left behind a massive volume of literature which is still relevant today. The two most notable writers of the period Aristotle and Plato are essential reading for anybody who seeks to probe the ultimate questions. Yet with the coming of Christianity they were cast aside and ignored. Though modern science sprouted out of Christian Europe, we could mount an argument that it was due to the legacy of the Greeks and despite Christian philosophy that enlightenment came. Christianity waged war against the Paganism it replaced, and it dragged its feet (and still does) against the scientific thinking that has all but replaced Christianity. Pagan philosophy and science both seek to discover the truth in a way that Christianity does not.

Which God ?

In any discussion of physics and God it is to pagan god beliefs we must turn. The Christians created a god for their own ends, not as a means of uncovering the truth to the four big questions but as a means of political control. The Christians stole the concept of God from Paganism and created their own version. Roman commentator Celcus wrote at the time of the Christian usurpation:

“Many of the ideas of the Christians have been expressed better – and earlier – by the Greeks. Behind these views is an ancient doctrine that has existed from the beginning.”

The Rational God

Pagan beliefs associated the universe as a whole with God. The two are the same thing. This view is possibly the oldest form of God belief there is and I venture the most rational form of God belief there is. The pantheist God offers a real insight into the nature of reality that the God of Christianity does not. It is no coincidence that some of the greatest advances in knowledge and understanding have been made by those who expressed a belief in the God of pantheism.

Einstein’s God

Spinoza created a metaphysical system which even predicted the nature of the scientific method that was to follow. Einstein was eager to emphasize his belief in the God of Spinoza and not a god of the personal kind. Scientists and physicists have never been slow to discuss god, but it is the God of pantheism, the ancient God of the truth seeking Pagans, to which they more often refer not the Christian God.

Ask in university departments around the world and you will find that physicists believe that the four big questions are a part of what their subject is attempting to answer. When the answers to the ultimate questions become available, then physicists will agree on those answers.

In the theology departments around the world the theologians already have the answers. For them the answers to the four questions above are that God is responsible. But you will find no agreement on the nature of God amongst the theologians. To know what type of God is being used to explain the four ultimate questions you will need to know where you are and which religion’s God is being used as the explanatory idea. You will also have to accept, without evidence, features of this God which are irrational. The theological explanation therefore is a cultural explanation, the truth of which depends on your willingness to accept the postulation of an unverifiable entity.

So how do physics and God relate from the physicists perspective? The physicist may have a requirement for evidence, but does that prevent her from believing that a God may exist? Or does the requirement for evidence prevent the physicist from invoking the concept of God whilst engaging in descriptions of the universe? The short answer is no. But to truly understand the physicist’s conception we first need to understand the type of God that she is thinking about.

The Pantheist God

The most prevalent concept of God in the physicists mind is the pantheist God, the God that is expressed as being on a par with nature. Essentially God and nature is the same thing. Many physicists today are content with promoting the idea that God is a valid concept. The reason for this comes from some interpretations of quantum mechanics but can also stem from a variety of philosophical approaches to understanding the world. At the basis of physicists acceptance that God is a valid concept is the idea that the universe itself is a thinking entity. Not in the way that the universe sits around thinking, but in the sense that we humans are the means by which the universe has thought, or spiritual existence. The point is that the universe may only be able to exist with minds as part of that universe. We can quite readily understand this sentence if we replace the word mind for say space and time. Space and the matter within, as well as time, seem to be fundamental to the existence of any possible universe. The physicists are also aware that mind may be as fundamental to universes as space and time.

Opposes Materialism

Most people who are new to pantheism often question the point in assuming that God and nature is the same thing. Isn’t this just a version of “sexed up atheism” as Richard Dawkins has claimed? As we can deduce from the previous paragraph the answer is no. Pantheism can come in a variety of guises. There can be physical varieties, spiritual varieties and dualistic varieties. Each brand can be assumed under the pantheist doctrine. But of most interest are the ones which come in the spirit flavour. Pantheism is most often expressed as a doctrine in opposition to a purely material philosophy, that all things are a consequence of matter.

The argument is that the universe (God) exists by necessity. As the universe causes itself then it has to exist in the way that it does and can exist in no other way. Again, everything that is a part of the universe is a part of the universe through necessity. There is no contingency. Had it been caused by something else, then the nature of that something else would determine how the universe is. As the universe is self caused then the universe is how it is, because that is how the universe is. Therefore the existence of minds is all a part of how the universe necessarily exists. The universe must contain mental phenomena.

Pantheism can be viewed as a form of atheism; atheism after all is a mere denial of the theistic god. Pantheism can also be viewed as a form of theism; all that exists is God, there is but one God and He is the origin of all things.

Grasping the few basic principles of pantheistic doctrine brings the four ultimate questions of existence into clear focus. To say that God did it is to say no more than that is how the universe is. The physicist in her investigations is attending to the detail of how God did it. A physicist cannot work with a theist god of the Christian church because it does not make any rational sense. From the pantheist position physics and God are intimately related. Indeed, physics is for many, the uncovering of the mind and structure of God. Physics and God are intimately related, but the physicist’s view of what God is differs greatly from the Christian definition.