atheism

← Encyclopedia

Atheism is the position that no god or gods exist — or, on a broader and now common definition, simply the absence of belief in any deity. The two senses are not identical, and the difference matters: the first makes a claim about reality, the second describes only a state of the person who holds it. Much modern dispute over the word turns on which is meant.

The distinction is not a quibble. To say there is no god is to advance a proposition about how things stand — a thesis with a truth-value, a thing that can be argued for, defended, and in principle be wrong. To say only that one holds no belief in any god is to report a condition: the place where someone stands when no claim about a deity has been accepted, whether through reasoned rejection, through never having taken the question up, or through finding the case unmade. The first is sometimes called positive or strong atheism, the second negative or broad atheism; the modern argument over whether atheism is “a belief” or merely the lack of one runs along this seam. Those who frame atheism as the default state — the absence one is left with when no proof of a god has been supplied — place the burden of evidence on the theist. Those who treat it as a definite claim accept a burden of their own. The word can be made to carry either load, and a great deal of cross-purpose talk follows from not saying which.

The godless charge

The term itself is Greek in origin. Atheos meant godless, and in the ancient world it was an accusation before it was a self-description — leveled at those who denied the city’s gods or refused its rites, Socrates among them. The charge against Socrates at his trial in 399 BCE was not unbelief in the modern sense but asebeia, impiety: not honoring the gods the city honored, and introducing new divinities. The word marked a civic and ritual failure more than a metaphysical one. To be atheos was to stand outside the cult that bound the polis together, and that standing-outside was itself the danger — a city whose gods went unhonored courted the gods’ anger on every head. The label was thrown at figures who had no common doctrine: Diagoras of Melos, remembered as Diagoras the Atheist for mocking the rites and divulging the Eleusinian mysteries; Theodorus of Cyrene, also called the Atheist; the anonymous voice of the so-called Sisyphus fragment, which has a clever man invent the gods as a watchman over deeds done in secret, a device for policing conduct that no human eye can reach. Whether that fragment states its author’s view or a character’s, and whether Diagoras was a reasoned unbeliever or a profaner of cult, the ancient world had already framed the essential suspicion: that the gods might be a human contrivance, and that someone could say so.

Doubt about the gods is at least as old as belief in them. What the ancient world lacked was not the thought but a settled name for the person who lived by it. The accusation came first; the self-description came much later.

Ancient strands, not one doctrine

Greek thinkers such as the atomists argued that the world could be explained by matter in motion without divine governance — bodies and void, collisions and swerves, an order that arranged itself with no hand behind it. The school that carried this physics furthest did not, strictly, deny the gods: it placed them in the spaces between worlds, serene and indifferent, taking no part in the making or running of things, so that the universe required no providence and the soul, being itself corporeal, simply dissolved at death. Fear of the gods and fear of death were the two great disturbances such physics was meant to cure. This is materialism without divine government rather than atheism in the full sense — the gods are kept, but emptied of office — and the line between the two is one the later tradition would have to learn to draw. It stands at a sharp angle to Stoicism, whose cosmos is shot through with an immanent divine reason, a providential logos ordering every event; the atomist and the Stoic agreed the world is matter and disagreed entirely about whether anything divine runs it.

In India the dispute took its own form. The Cārvāka or Lokāyata school denied an afterlife and the authority of the Vedas, recognized only direct perception as a source of knowledge, and dismissed the immaterial soul, karma, and liberation as priestly invention; consciousness, on this account, arises from matter as an emergent property and ends with the body. Within the broader sweep of Hinduism this was the recognized heterodox extreme, named and refuted precisely because it was taken seriously. Strands of early Buddhist and Jain thought set aside a creator god entirely — not out of polemic but because the architecture of their paths had no work for one. A cosmos governed by the moral law of action and consequence, running of its own accord across vast cycles of time, needs no maker to start it and no ruler to keep it just; release is sought through discipline and insight, not through the favor of a sovereign deity. These traditions are not “atheist” in the combative European sense — they are crowded with buddhas, tirthankaras, devas, and powers — but they decline the single move of positing one supreme creating god, and that decline is structural, woven into the doctrine rather than hurled at it.

What these had in common was not a shared doctrine but a willingness to do without one particular kind of explanation: the appeal to a divine will as the last term in accounting for the world. The atomist did without a governing providence; the Cārvāka did without an afterlife and a revealed scripture; the Buddhist and Jain did without a creator. They reached these conclusions from different premises and toward different ends. To gather them under one word is a later convenience, useful only so long as it does not flatten what divided them.

The deliberate modern form

Atheism in the modern, deliberate sense took shape in early modern Europe, as the authority of revealed religion came under sustained pressure. The word began to be claimed rather than merely flung. For most of the Christian centuries atheist had been a term of abuse, applied liberally to heretics, deists, and opponents who in fact held some doctrine of God; an avowed denial of all divinity, defended in print under one’s own argument, was rare to the point of near-invisibility. What changed was the standing of revelation itself. Once the claim that certain texts and events disclosed God’s mind was opened to the same scrutiny as any other claim — historical, textual, evidential — the question of whether a god existed at all could be asked as an ordinary question rather than a forbidden one.

The Enlightenment gave it intellectual scaffolding: the demand that beliefs answer to evidence and argument, and the suspicion that the idea of God served human needs more than it described the cosmos. Reason, on this program, was not one authority among several but the court before which the others — scripture, tradition, ecclesiastical office — were summoned to make their case; a belief in God that could not show its credentials had no more standing than any other unsupported claim. Out of this came the first sustained European literature of outright denial, in which God’s nonexistence was argued as a conclusion rather than confessed as a sin. The argument that the world’s order needs no designer, that morality can stand without a divine legislator, that the soul is a function of the body and dies with it, and that the long reign of religion is better explained by fear, ignorance, and the interest of priests and princes than by any truth in its object — all of this was assembled into a position a person could occupy openly.

By the nineteenth century, atheism had allied itself with science, with critiques of religion as projection or as social instrument, and with secular politics. The alliance with the natural sciences let unbelief present itself not as mere denial but as the worldview that followed from taking the world as the sciences found it — a cosmos intelligible without appeal beyond itself. The projection-critique gave it a theory of religion’s origin that did not require religion to be true. On this account the gods are made in the human image: the attributes heaped on the divine — power, knowledge, love, justice without limit — are the idealized attributes of the human species itself, set loose from their owner and worshipped as another. Theology, read this way, is anthropology that has forgotten its subject; to understand God is to understand the human heart projected onto the sky. A parallel current treated religion less as projection than as instrument — a structure serving social cohesion, political order, or class interest, to be explained by the function it performs rather than the object it names. And the program that would replace theology with science gave the whole movement a philosophy of history: humanity passing from a theological stage, in which events are referred to divine wills, through a metaphysical stage of abstract essences, to a positive stage in which only what observation and law can establish is allowed to count as knowledge — a scheme worked out under the banner of positivism, which proposed that the age of gods and the age of metaphysics were both behind a humanity come of age. In the twentieth century atheism became, in much of the world, an unremarkable option rather than a scandal — adopted by states as policy, assumed by individuals without argument, and held by many who had simply never acquired the belief it denies.

Distinctions and the range within

It is worth keeping distinctions clear. Atheism is not agnosticism, which withholds judgment on what cannot be known; nor is it the same as secularism, the principle that public institutions stand apart from religion, though the two often travel together. The agnostic and the atheist part on a fine but real line: the agnostic suspends the verdict, holding that the question of a god’s existence is not — or not yet — decidable, while the atheist returns a verdict, even if only the provisional one that no god is to be expected. Suspension of judgment is itself an ancient discipline, the skeptic’s refusal to assert either side; it is not the same as denial, and conflating the two erases a distinction the traditions of doubt took care to draw. Atheists differ sharply among themselves — some treat the nonexistence of God as a settled conclusion, others as the most reasonable working assumption, still others as a matter on which they simply find no compelling case either way. Between the militant denier and the person who has merely never found the question pressing lies most of the actual population the word describes, and the knowledge each claims is of different orders — the one asserting that the matter is closed, the other only that it has not been opened in his favor.

The questions atheism answers in the negative are the questions the rest of the tradition answers in the positive. Whether the soul survives the body; whether the will is free in a cosmos with no divine author or end; whether human beings stand in any relation to a power that knows and judges them; whether the moral law has a source above the human — on each, the atheist position is the refusal of the supernatural answer, and the demand that whatever is asserted instead be made to stand on its own. This is why free will becomes, for the atheist, a problem to be worked out within nature rather than a gift conferred from outside it, and why the standing of revelation is the first thing the position contests.

The textual and scholarly record

The history of atheism is harder to write than the history of most doctrines, because its early carriers left so little, and what they left survives mostly in the words of their opponents. Much of what is known of ancient unbelief comes through hostile witnesses — refutations, polemics, the doxographies that cataloged positions in order to dismiss them — so that reconstructing the denier’s argument often means reading against the grain of the believer who preserved it. The atomist and Epicurean account of a world without divine governance is transmitted chiefly through Diogenes Laertius, whose tenth book carries the surviving letters and maxims; the public-domain R. D. Hicks Loeb edition of the Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Harvard University Press, 1925) remains the standard facing-page Greek and English, freely readable through the Perseus Digital Library. The Cārvāka case for matter and perception, denying the Vedas and the afterlife, is reconstructed almost entirely from the works of its critics, as the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy sets out in its survey of Indian Materialism — the school’s own books did not survive the traditions that answered them.

On the central conceptual question — what atheism is, and how it stands to its neighbor — the reference treatment is Paul Draper’s Atheism and Agnosticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which presses the distinction between the proposition that no god exists and the mere absence of theistic belief, and separates both from the agnostic’s claim about the limits of knowledge. On the ancient world, Tim Whitmarsh’s Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World (Alfred A. Knopf, 2015) argues that radical religious skepticism is native to archaic and classical Greece and not the invention of a later age — placing him against the scholars who hold that atheism in the strict sense is a modern, eighteenth-century formation, a disagreement that turns on how much one is willing to read into the scattered ancient testimonia. The nineteenth-century critique of religion as projection has its classic statement in Ludwig Feuerbach’s Das Wesen des Christentums (1841), whose standard English, The Essence of Christianity, was made by Marian Evans — George Eliot — and is held in full at Project Gutenberg; the projection thesis there receives the formulation that all later versions draw on, and is treated under Ludwig Feuerbach. The program to succeed religion with science took its most systematic form in Auguste Comte’s law of three stages, surveyed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Comte, the intellectual core of positivism.

What the refusal carries

Within a body of religious and esoteric thought, atheism marks the boundary the rest of the material is drawn against, and the steady counter-voice within it. The traditions of unseen order largely assume what atheism declines; atheism is the long-standing refusal of that assumption, or the demand that it earn its place. It is the position that keeps the others honest — the standing question put to every claim of a hidden hand, every report of a power behind the world, every account that ends in a divine will. To set it among the doctrines it denies is not to rank it above or below them but to give the negation its place beside the affirmations, as the thing they are all, in the end, an answer to.

That refusal has rarely been mere absence. More often it has carried its own seriousness — an insistence that the world be taken as it is found, without appeal beyond it.

→ Related: Knowledge · Free Will · Soul · Christianity · Ancient Greece · Agnosticism · Deity · Religion · Reason · Revelation · Socrates · Ludwig Feuerbach · Positivism · Buddhism · Jainism · Hinduism · Stoicism