In yesterday's op-ed submission, "A case for God," Kevin Dillon does his utmost to place the philosophical position of atheism on the same level as what he describes as "beliefs" of all kinds.
Atheism, Dillon argues, merits no more consideration than any other "perspective" on reality, because it is simply "just another belief structure [...] like any other religion or spirituality" that "does not operate on the rules of logic, but rather on a more abstract ... concept of faith." Furthermore, Dillon poses that atheism holds "as much legitimacy as a religious text."
Before refuting the various claims Dillon makes, I would first like to clarify the terms used in this discussion, as clarity is the antidote to confusion.
Faith: The term "faith" gets thrown around a lot. The atheistic philosopher George H. Smith gives arguably the most reductionist definition of faith as "belief without, or in spite of, reason."
It is this sort of faith that we are discussing. It is important to note that this conception of faith is inherently different from the way "faith" is used in the sentence, "I have faith in my friends."
Reason: The American Heritage Dictionary defines reason as "the intellectual faculty by which humans seek or attain knowledge or truth," and further clarifies that "reason is the power to think rationally and logically and to draw inferences." This is what we mean by reason: The power to reach a conclusion drawn from the precepts of logic.
Atheism, or in any case, the kind to which the vast majority of self-defined atheists adhere, is in its essence a lack of belief in the existence of a god and is distinct from the belief that no god exists.
As such, atheism is similar in nature to the lack of belief in the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Jedi (as actual, very real, people). It is clear to anyone who has researched atheism that it is not, as Dillon put it, "a belief structure" but rather, atheism is an intellectual position reflecting that the available evidence for a "god" or "gods" is severely lacking.
Unlike religionists, i.e. theists who adhere to a religion, atheists do not hold a unified set of beliefs that binds them together. It is important to understand this, because it is something that illustrates in what ways atheism differs greatly from any form of religion or organized belief system.
Atheists hold a unified position on just about nothing, a fact that reflects the diversity of atheists and the few requirements demanded of a person adhering to atheism.
In fact, the only requirement to be an atheist is that one not hold the assertion that "a god exists" to be true, whereas, for instance, to be a Christian one must accept unequivocally that (a) a supernatural God exists with certain immutable characteristics, (b) Jesus is the son of God and that (c) the Bible is the word of God.
Whereas atheism results from a dedication to the precepts of logic and reason, theism is founded on the basis of an unflinching acceptance of certain truths - without question - even if they conflict with available evidence.
Both reason and faith are used by their adherents for the purpose of gaining a greater and more accurate knowledge of reality. But of the two, only reason provides a method of verifying and integrating new data into knowledge while constantly self-assessing its validity.
Faith provides static answers that the faithful must ardently assert, even in the face of mounting counter-factual evidence. Because of this, faith fails to provide accurate knowledge, and the Bible and every other religious text fail to depict an accurate picture of reality.
For these reasons, it is bewildering to me that Dillon states that "modern science" holds as much "legitimacy as a religious text" and that it "explains reality" as well as the Bible. Indeed, if the Bible reflected reality as well as Dillon says it might, then maybe I should expect to find evidence somewhere of the mythical Great Flood?
Perhaps I might also find evidence of an Earth some 4,000 years old? Maybe even a fossil record indicating life has remained the same since that fateful Saturday when God created living beings? And what of dinosaurs, the parting of seas and the ability to walk on water?
I am sure that these questions do not phase the faithful, and perhaps not even Dillon himself.
And yet, that is the point. Those who rely on faith to gain knowledge of the world do not like to consider evidence that discredits their faith, and so they swim in the shallow end of rational inquiry.
By only considering answers to questions they already have the answers to, and the answers to other questions only so far as those answers justify their beliefs, those who rely on faith fail to accurately account for the world as it exists.
As for Dillon's statement that he "cannot disprove the possibility that God does not exist, just as an atheist cannot disprove the possibility that God exists," it does not take much to see just how hollow an assessment it is.
First, I challenge Dillon to disprove the existence of any entity in the realm of the imaginary. Please sir, disprove the existence of dragons! For sure, you could counter with many things, but to no avail; dragons could exist on another planet - or, wait, in another universe!
My point is that Dillon fails to see that theists, not atheists, bear the onus of proof. Atheists, as I discussed before, make no positive assessment of reality; rather they simply lack a belief in the existence of "something." To make it clear: Atheists have nothing to prove.
Theists on the other hand, because they assert the existence of "something" and hold the positive belief that a "supernatural being called God" exists, are required to present their case in terms of evidence before the statement that "God exists" can be verified, validated and finally classified as fact and knowledge.
Without going through these processes, no positive belief can become fact, and until that point, it lies simply in the realm of speculation, if that. While, like the possibility of God, the premise that extraterrestrials visit our planet on a frequent basis is possible, I do not hold the positive belief that extraterrestrials do not visit our planet. Rather, I simply hold the default position that they have not, until enough evidence comes to light to persuade me otherwise.
Surely, you don't go around asserting that every Disney character doesn't actually exist? And for good reason: Until someone presents you with substantial evidence, you have no reason to act otherwise.
Like Dillon, atheists do also realize there are some things we don't understand. Where the difference lies is that Dillon is very willing to classify some things as "unknowable" and is rather comfortable with the notion that the human reason is bounded and that the concept of "God" lies beyond the horizon of our understanding.
As a rational, curious atheist I would venture that nothing lies beyond the realm of human comprehension. We are only bounded by the state of our knowledge as it is today and rely on the work of current thinkers and explorers to light the path to future knowledge.
If Kevin Dillon, or anyone else, seeks further enlightenment on the nature of atheism, please consider this an invitation to join the Freethought Society in our discussions Thursdays at 9 p.m. in the campus center.
Xavier Malina is a sophomore majoring in international relations and the treasurer and public relations officer for the Freethought Society at Tufts.
