When I look around at the state of atheism, in a strange way it reminds me of Darwin’s Finches; how various species of atheists have morphed from one type to another in an intellectual archipelago. At one time the Christians were called atheists by the Romans—imagine that—because they refused to bow down to their gods. There have been scientific and philosophical atheism, the strong and the weak atheism and there have been the dogmatic and the professional types. So is this an evolutionary process or just a state of confusion? Or does the term ‘atheism’ means one thing and conceals other motives behind it use?
To resolve this, let us first try and understand the word itself. If asymmetry is the absence of symmetry, atheism should be absence of theism.
The classical definition of theism is ‘affirmation of the existence of a transcendent personal creator God’. Atheism should therefore mean ‘absence of the theistic affirmation’ or as is commonly, and correctly, understood ‘belief that God does not exist’. (Modern definition, however includes ‘or gods’ as an extended definition of theism. This, however, appears to add an internal contradiction to the definition.)
If these definitions are correct then religion is not identical to theism, as is assumed to be, because we know there are religions that are clearly atheistic (example Jainism and Buddhism). This misconception that theism is equal to religion is also responsible for communism being wrongly labeled atheistic. The conflict that communism has is with religion. Chinese and Cambodian communists have massacred Buddhists, despite the fact that Buddhism is atheistic. Communism therefore derives its atheism implicitly via its history of persecution of Christians. Marx and Engles wrote that belief in God is a social issue. God is used [through religion] by the powerful to exploit the weak. And clearly ‘religion’ here is the Christianity.
So is atheism different from anti-religion? If we accept the idea that communism is not atheist, but anti-religion, then it should be. If one is an atheist by implication of being anti-religion (in general) or anti-a-particular-religion then such a one can at best be called a pseudo-atheist (which would include dogmatic atheists, pop atheists and I-am-an-atheist atheist) and who would most likely expend more time against a religion rather than reason non-existence of God, which is the basis of atheism. (To distinguish between the me-too atheist and the atheist we may have to in the future qualify the word with ‘real’ or ‘pure’.)
My assertion then is that much of what we read as being ‘atheistic’ is actually ‘anti-religion’ in general and more specifically ‘anti-Christianity’. For the pseudo-atheists, atheism is just an incidental matter which is implied by their preoccupation with Christianity. Much of what passes off as atheistic literature, including those by some scientists and many pop writers and journalist should actually be classified as ‘anti-religion’ literature. Usually this religion is Christianity, and gets extended to other religions through such tags that other religions may share with Christianity, like ‘Judeo-Christian’, ‘Abrahamic’ and generic usage of the word ‘God’.
I draw this conclusion purely on the basis of close observation of discussions on the net, in books, newspapers and television. I have not spotted one living real atheist. And a real atheist to me would be one who independent of whether any religion exits, or not, gives an irrefutable scientific or philosophical understanding of non-existence of God. There could be many, but none of them appear to find it necessary to advertise it.
The writing on the wall is clear. This whole issue is about selective pseudo-atheism. Selective, because such atheists from Bertrand Russell* to Jared Diamond**, have found Islam to be a great religion as opposed to regressive Christianity. Professional atheists like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens, post 9/11 want Christianity to share the blame for the ills of Islam. Then these atheists attack on monotheism*** is aimed at excluding polytheistic religions. The cloak of atheism conceals the dagger of anti-Christianity. Why is this concealment important for the selective pseudo-atheists?
First, drawing a clear battle line against Christianity would create a bubble that bursts before it is formed. The cloak and dagger method puts atheism in the front, giving their views the semblance of a civilized debate. Further, most ordinary people will not be able to argue for or against atheism. Many learned people have not been successful in the debate on the existence or non-existence of God as understood in Christianity. Hence the word atheism has systematically and deliberately been degenerated into a symbol, shedding its scientific and philosophical pretensions and declaring, “like it or not, there is no God”. The impression is conveyed that the non-existence of God has already been proved, because “Scientists say there is no God” and it is foolish to believe otherwise. Words like humanism, rationalism and freedom are also freely wrapped around this symbol, to further cloud the issue. So once you accept, or are sufficiently confused by, what “scientists say”, Christianity’s claims will start crumbling down, just on the strength of that symbol. If scientists say there is no God, then what is left in Christianity. Without this atheism symbol created by pseudo-atheists, they will have to abandon Christianity and get entangled into real philosophical debate on atheism—there is not much money in philosophy.
* The supremacy of the East was not only military. Science, philosophy, poetry, and the arts, all flourished in the Muhammadan world at a time when Europe was sunk in barbarism. Europeans, with unpardonable insularity, call this period ‘the Dark Ages’: but it was only in Europe that it was dark — indeed only in Christian Europe, for Spain, which was Muhammadan, had a brilliant culture.—(Bertrand Russell)
** Medieval Islam was technologically advanced and open to innovation. It achieved far higher literacy rates than in contemporary Europe; it assimilated the legacy of classical Greek civilization to such a degree that many classical books are now known to us only through Arabic copies. It invented windmills, trigonometry, lateen sails and made major advances in metallurgy, mechanical and chemical engineering and irrigation methods. In the middle-ages the flow of technology was overwhelmingly from Islam to Europe rather from Europe to Islam.—(Jared Diamond, “Guns, Germs, and Steel.”)
*** Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism.—(Gore Vidal, 1992 Lowell Lecture at Harvard University)