Is atheism a theology?

June 22, 12:52 PMBirmingham Atheism ExaminerJerome Triplett

Previous Next

9 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Birmingham Atheism Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

William (Guillaume) Farel, John (Jean) Calvin, Theodore de Beze, and John Knox

Birmingham Christian Spirituality Examiner Ray Shackelford, in his recent article “Go with the flow”, made the claim that “Everyone has a theology. Even the atheist who says there is no God is making a theological statement and betraying his or her own ‘theology’”. Such a position is not particular to Mr. Shackelford, but is in fact a common misconception surrounding atheism that deserves addressing.

Theology is defined as the “study of the nature of God and the relationship of the human and divine. The term was first used in the works of Plato and other Greek philosophers to refer to the teaching of myth, but the discipline expanded within Christianity and has found application in all theistic religions. It examines doctrines concerning such subjects as sin, faith, and grace and considers the terms of God’s covenant with humankind in matters such as salvation and eschatology. Theology typically takes for granted the authority of a religious teacher of the validity of a religious experience. It is distinguished from philosophy in being concerned with justifying and explicating a faith, rather than questioning the underlying assumptions of such faith, but it often employs quasi-philosophical methods.” (Italics added for emphasis)

Does atheism attempt to “study the nature of God”? No more than someone asserting that dragons do not exist can be said to be studying the nature of dragons. What atheism does have in common with theology is a willingness to examine the doctrines of religion. The two schools of thought diverge immediately, however. Atheism is more than happy to discuss the doctrines of a given religion, illuminating the outdated, contradictory, pernicious and occasional cogitative teachings held in their respective holy books. But, unlike theology, what atheism will never do is attribute these teaching to revelation from an all powerful deity or take for granted the authority of religious leaders who claim to have direct and private conversations with said deity. To discuss the validity of religious beliefs and teachings is a discussion of the products of culture and the human mind, not a treatise on the existence of God, and saying that there is no God is not the same as studying the nature of said being.

Mr. Shackelford also points out what he considers to be problems with atheism and its methods of reasoning, as opposed to what he views to be a more robust theological view of life. These views are what most atheists consider to be the real issue of debate, so let’s consider some of his points and look at how an atheist might respond:

• “First, people look around and see certain events either occurring or not occurring. Second, they begin making assumptions about God, based on their observations and their feelings about those observations as to who God is, what He is like, etc. Thus, their conclusions run something like this: there is so much suffering in the world and God has done nothing to stop it, therefore God must not care!” - Here the atheist would argue that drawing conclusions from observational evidence is one of the best methods for interpreting our world available and any attempt at explaining the world that discredits this method is at once suspect. It also must be repeated that the atheist would not say “God must not care”, but rather would quietly explain that the unmitigated suffering in the world is but one good example for why God doesn’t exist. For the atheist, to say God doesn’t care about suffering has as much relevance as saying the Keebler Elves do not care that your cookies are stale.
• “The most important facts, the wisdom, council, and content of the Bible are sadly absent from this reasoning process”. - Here our atheist might point out that this is a common position that immediately finds itself on quite shaky ground. What is meant by this statement? Does it mean following Biblical teaching such as “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets”, or does it mean “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”? How do you reconcile these teachings and who decides which ones to follow?
• “If you start out with what you think, with what you feel, or what the world says about God, you doom yourself to a secular worldview until, hopefully, God intervenes.” - Here the atheist would assert that any worldview that requires checking ones thoughts at the door is simply wicked, degrading and undeserving of respectable men and women. Asking for God to intervene can be interpreted as no more than an end to religious freedom under the auspices of theocratic rule. At least that seems to be the form divine intervention always takes. Ask the Iranians or Afghans how they feel about such rule.
• “The cure for this disease is to stop looking around and start looking up”.  - Present our atheist friend with such an idea and you’ll universally find a hope that the notions of free inquiry, religious freedom and secular law being “diseases” never again hold influence in the west. Should this happen the candle of civilization may very well be permanently extinguished this time. The last time this happened we lost the library of Alexandria and 1,000 years of darkness ensured. The invention of nuclear weapons means the next darkness for humanity may be total and permanent.
• “God forbid that Christians would side with the Newspaper over the Bible or an Activist over the writings of the Apostles.” - Here the atheist might be tempted to ask, which do you prefer? The New York Times report that eating certain foods can help you manage your diabetes or the Bible’s assertion that disease is caused by demons? Who should we have listened to, the activists who said that slavery was evil or Paul, who said “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ”?

In conclusion, one can assert with confidence that atheism by definition is not a theology. Atheists are quite willing to address many of the key tenants of religious faith, but not by quibbling over whether or not God exists, for to the atheist all that burden falls on those who assert this claim despite any concrete evidence whatsoever and, until such evidence can be produced, such an argument is pointless. The real debate is whether or not the tenants of religion are accurate as a description of the world and valid as a means of living within it, for which there is a growing body of evidence available for review and discussion, but that as is also by definition not a theology, for it is not the nature of God at issue here, but the nature of humans and the world we occupy.