Daily Archives: June 2, 2021

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...

(a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26, c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philosophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.

Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past than a critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philosophical meaning; and though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):

Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship.

Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world.

A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism; and may be further viewed as cosmological or psychological, according as it is motived, on the one hand, by a consideration of the paucity of actual data available for the arguments proving the existence of a super-sensible and spiritual God, or, what amounts to the same thing, the attributing of all cosmic change and development to the self-contained potentialities of an eternal matter; or, on the other hand, by an empiric or theoretic estimate of the powers of reason working upon the data furnished by sense-perception. From whichever cause this negative form of atheism proceeds, it issues in agnosticism or materialism; although the agnostic is, perhaps, better classed under this head than the materialist. For the former, professing a state of nescience, more properly belongs to a category under which those are placed who neglect, rather than explain, nature without a God. Moreover, the agnostic may be a theist, if he admits the existence of a being behind and beyond nature, even while he asserts that such a being is both unprovable and unknowable. The materialist belongs to this type so long as he merely neglects, and does not exclude from his system, the existence of God. So, too, does the positivist, regarding theological and metaphysical speculation as mere passing stages of thought through which the human mind has been journeying towards positive, or related empirical, knowledge. Indeed, any system of thought or school of philosophy that simply omits the existence of God from the sum total of natural knowledge, whether the individual as a matter of fact believes in Him or not, can be classed in this division of atheism, in which, strictly speaking, no positive assertion or denial is made as to the ultimate fact of His being.

There are two systems of practical or moral atheism which call for attention. They are based upon the theoretic systems just expounded. One system of positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God, would naturally follow from the profession of positive theoretic atheism; and it is significant of those to whom such a form of theoretic atheism is sometimes attributed, that for the sanctions of moral actions they introduce such abstract ideas as those of duty, the social instinct, or humanity. There seems to be no particular reason why they should have recourse to such sanctions, since the morality of an action can hardly be derived from its performance as a duty, which in turn can be called and known as a "duty" only because it refers to an action that is morally good. Indeed an analysis of the idea of duty leads to a refutation of the principle in whose support it is invoked, and points to the necessity of a theistic interpretation of nature for its own justification.

The second system of negative practical or moral atheism may be referred to the second type of theoretic atheism. It is like the first in not relating human actions to an extra-mundane, spiritual, and personal lawgiver; but that, not because such a lawgiver does not exist, but because the human intelligence is incapable of so relating them. It must not be forgotten, however, that either negative theoretic atheism or negative practical atheism is, as a system, strictly speaking compatible with belief in a God; and much confusion is often caused by the inaccurate use of the terms, belief, knowledge, opinion, etc.

Lastly, a third type is generally, though perhaps wrongly, included in moral atheism. "Practical atheism is not a kind of thought or opinion, but a mode of life" (R. Flint, Anti-theisitc Theories, Lect. I). This is more correctly called, as it is described, godlessness in conduct, quite irrespective of any theory of philosophy, or morals, or of religious faith. It will be noticed that, although we have included agnosticism, materialism, and pantheism, among the types of atheism, strictly speaking this latter does not necessarily include any one of the former. A man may be an agnostic simply, or an agnostic who is also an atheist. He may be a scientific materialist and no more, or he may combine atheism with his materialism. It does not necessarily follow, because the natural cognoscibility of a personal First Cause is denied, that His existence is called in question: nor, when matter is called upon to explain itself, that God is critically denied. On the other hand, pantheism, while destroying the extra-mundane character of God, does not necessarily deny the existence of a supreme entity, but rather affirms such as the sum of all existence and the cause of all phenomena whether of thought or of matter. Consequently, while it would be unjust to class agnostics, materialists, or pantheists as necessarily also atheists, it cannot be denied that atheism is clearly perceived to be implied in certain phases of all these systems. There are so many shades and gradations of thought by which one form of a philosophy merges into another, so much that is opinionative and personal woven into the various individual expositions of systems, that, to be impartially fair, each individual must be classed by himself as atheist or theist. Indeed, more upon his own assertion or direct teaching than by reason of any supposed implication in the system he advocated must this classification be made. And if it is correct to consider the subject from this point of view, it is surprising to find to what an exceedingly small number the supposed atheistic ranks dwindle. In company with Socrates, nearly all the reputed Greek atheists strenuously repudiated the charge of teaching that there were no gods. Even Bion, who, according to Diogenes Laertius (Life of Aristippus, XIII, Bohn's tr.), adopted the scandalous moral teaching of the atheist Theodorus, turned again to the gods whom he had insulted, and when he came to die demonstrated in practice what he had denied in theory. As Laertius says in his "Life of Bion", he "who never once said, 'I have sinned but spare me

Epicurus, the founder of that school of physics which limited all causes to purely natural ones and consequently implied, if he did not actually assert, atheism, is spoken of as a man whose "piety towards the gods and (whose) affection for his country was quite unspeakable" (ib., Life of Epicurus, V). And though Lucretius Carus speaks of the downfall of popular religion which he wished to bring about (De Rerum natura, I, 79-80), yet, in his own letter to Henaeceus (Laert., Life of Epicurus, XXVII), he states plainly a true theistic position: "For there are gods: for our knowledge of them is indistinct. But they are not of the character which people in general attribute to them." Indeed, this one citation perfectly illustrates the fundamental historic meaning of the term, atheism.

The naturalistic pantheism of the Italian Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) comes near to, if it is not actually a profession of, atheism; while Tomaso Campanella (1568-1639), on the contrary, in his nature-philosophy finds in atheism the one impossibility of thought, Spinoza (1632-77), while defending the doctrine that God certainly exists, so identifies Him with finite existence that it is difficult to see how he can be defended against the charge of atheism even of the first type. In the eighteenth century, and especially in France, the doctrines of materialism were spread broadcast by the Encyclopedists. La Mettrie, Holbach, Fererbach, and Fleurens are usually classed among the foremost materialistic atheists of the period. Voltaire, on the contrary, while undoubtedly helping on the cause of practical atheism, distinctly held its theoretic contrary. He, as well as Rousseau, was a deist. Comte, it will be remembered, refused to be called an atheist. In the last century Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer, with others of the evolutionistic school of philosophy, were, quite erroneously, charged with positive atheism. It is a charge which can in no way be substantiated; and the invention andonism of Ernst Hackel, goes far towards forming an atheistic system of philosophy. But even the last named admits that there may be a God, though so limited and so foreign to the deity of theists that his admission can hardly remove the system from the first category of theoretic atheism.

Among the unscientific and unphilosophical there have from time to time been found dogmatic atheists of the first type. Here again, however, many of those popularly styled atheists are more correctly described by some other title. There is a somewhat rare tract, "Atheism Refuted in a Discourse to prove the Existence of God by T.P." British Museum Catalogue, "Tom Paine", who was at one time popularly called an atheist. And perhaps, of the few who have upheld an indubitable form of positive theoretic atheism, none has been taken seriously enough to have exerted any influence upon the trend of philosophic or scientific thought. Robert Ingersoll might be instanced, but though popular speakers and writers of this type may create a certain amount of unlearned disturbance, they are not treated seriously by thinking men, and it is extremely doubtful whether they deserve a place in any historical or philosophical exposition of atheism.

REIMMAN, Historia atheismi et atheorum . . . (Hildesheim, 1725); TOUSSAINT in Dict. de thologie, s.v. (a good bibliography); JANET AND SEAILLES, History of the Problems of Philosophy (tr., London, 1902), II; HETTINGER, Natural Religion (tr., New York, 1890); FLINT, Anti-theistic Theories (New York, 1894); LILLY, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892); DAURELLE, L Atheisme devant la raison humaine (Paris, 1883); WARD, Naturalism and Agnosticism (New York, 1899); LADD, Philosophy of Religion (New York, 1905); II; BOEDDER, Natural Theologh (New York, 1891); BLACKIE, Natural History of Atheism (New York, 1878); The Catholic World, XXVII, 471: BARRY, The End of Atheism in the Catholic World, LX, 333; SHEA, Steps to Atheism in The Am, Cath. Quart. Rev., 1879, 305; POHLE, lehrbuck d. Dogmatik (Paderborn, 1907) I; BAUR in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), s.v. See also bibliography under AGNOSTICISM, MATERIALISM, PANTHEISM, and THEISM. For the refuation of ATHEISM see the article GOD.)

APA citation. Aveling, F. (1907). Atheism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

MLA citation. Aveling, Francis. "Atheism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Beth Ste-Marie.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Read the original here:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Atheism

Im not religious. Im an atheist. This is a common statement today, especially in the West, but it is at heart an oxymoron. While atheism does not look like Christianity or Islam, the two largest religions in the world, atheism is a religion. This, of course, is a statement that has earned ridicule, slander and rage more than once. Many atheists will argue that the very definition of atheism is non-religious. While it is true that atheists do not believe in God, that does not mean that they are not religious.

Like any religion, atheism is somewhat difficult to accurately define. There will always be self-identified adherents who disagree with a single definition. Christianity, for example, could be defined as those who believe in Jesus Christ. This definition could also include, however, Christian Witches who see Christ as the God and another deity as Goddess. Most self-identified Christians, however, would not consider these Christian Witches to be true Christians. A more detailed definition of Christianity, however, could accidentally include Protestantism, for example, but exclude Catholicism.

Most definitions of atheism are rather simple, but they are widely accepted by both atheists and non-atheists. These definitions generally include what can be called the three tenets of atheism: 1) God or gods do not exist, 2) there is no life after death, 3) this material world is all that exists. Some self-identified atheists will accept that there are spiritual beings of some sort but reject any notion of a creator God or gods. Most atheists, however, reject any idea that there is a world beyond this one or beings beyond the natural. As such, the three fold definition of atheism is the one that will be used here.

Religious scholars have struggled for years to agree on a single definition that answers the question what is religion? Early attempts at a definition claimed that religion was simply a belief in God. This, of course, was not a definition that could encapsulate the religions of the East. Buddhism, for example, does not hold to belief in a single creator god, but no one today would claim that Buddhists are not religious. As such, the definition of religion continued to evolve over the years.

Based on some of the earliest definitions of religion, atheism is not a religion. Neither, however, is Buddhism, Hinduism, Goddess worship or, by some early definitions, Catholicism. Other early definitions, however, would also exclude atheism, but they would also count common superstitions, childhood nightmares, nationalism and the products of psychotic breaks or hallucinations as religions. Most people today would not call these religions either. According to later, more nuanced definitions of religion, however, atheism is a religion.

Frazers Golden Bough is an older work that studied religion and had a number of flaws, many of which are unsurprising in hindsight considering when the book was written. His definition of religion, however, continues to make its way into secular universities today.

Atheism fits Frazers definition of a religion. Most atheists believe in the proven laws of physics and scientific theories such as evolution and natural selection. These natural laws are beyond human control and are seen as controlling the material world.

Atheists do not believe that there is a divine. This, however, does not mean that James definition of religion does not hold true for atheism.

James makes it a point to explain that religion is about action as well as belief. Atheists do not believe in a god or in gods, and they act accordingly. So, they feel a lack of belief and experience only this world, which leads them to act as though there is no world but this one.

Note as well that James points out that these experiences are individual. A belief system does not need a structured hierarchy to be a religion. It just needs to be a collective set of beliefs and experiences. Those beliefs can certainly be a belief that this material world is all that exists, and those experiences can be the experience of a lack of any sort of divinity.

The creed of an atheist can be described in three points: there is no divinity, there is no afterlife and this material world is all that exists. Many atheists would tack and this material world is governed by natural, understandable laws onto the end of that creed. This creed, when laid out in simple terms, looks a great deal like the tenets of any other religion. These tenets, then, are how atheists in general orient themselves in the world. These three beliefs govern atheists lives and are used to help them make sense of both everyday phenomenon and to study that which is not yet understood. In the same way as other religions, atheists work to fit the entirety of their experience into their worldview. What other people experience as miracles, atheists turn inside out in an effort to explain with natural law, and they insist that there is a way to explain the unexplainable with their creed. Other religions attempt to make sense of the world in the same way.

Symbols is a somewhat vague term, but the rest of the definition is clear. Religion is a pattern of thought in people that helps them understand the world and becomes so ingrained in them that anything else seems unnatural. This is atheism to a tee.

Atheism has conceptions of a general order of existence. Those conceptions are generally the natural laws that science has identified. Just like some of the basic tenets in other religions, most atheists do not question these basic underlying assumptions. They cannot bring themselves to question neither natural laws nor the idea that life is based solely upon them even when those natural laws have been shown to be flawed and imperfect. When confronted with that fact, atheists will do the same mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs that they accuse Christians of doing when confronted with an unpleasant Bible verse.

Atheists also fit the second part of Geertz definition perfectly. The moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. Atheists often claim that believing in deities is like believing in fairy tales. Their religion, the religion of atheism and natural law, is the only one that is rational or based in reality. Their beliefs, experiences and feelings seem to be uniquely realistic.

Atheism fits many theoretical definitions of religion, and it is also practiced like other religions. In daily conversation, atheism is equated with other religions. When asked, Are you a Christian? most atheists will respond with No, Im an atheist. Atheist, then, becomes a religious label just like No, Im a Buddhist. Atheists also evangelize, though they do not want to use that word to describe their conversion attempts. Evangelize is most commonly used in relationship to Christianity, but it can be used to describe other religions attempts to gain converts, and atheism aggressively seeks to create new converts. Many atheists feel a sense of obligation or desire to open peoples eyes to what they see as the folly of other religions. There is no difference between an atheist attempting to get a Jew to admit there is no God and a Christian seeking to get a Hindu to denounce the idea of reincarnation. Both people are trying to convert a person from one belief system to another. Atheists conversion attempts are also blatantly religious because they are focused on beliefs about and in God.

Like adherents of all religions, atheists run the gamut from moderate to zealous. Many atheists are happy to live out their beliefs quietly. Others, however, are zealots who insult, degrade and curse other religions. They see other religions as a plague on the earth that needs to be destroyed and replaced with worldwide atheism. Many of these are personally offended or angered by any signs of other religions, especially in a public area. As such, they seek to remove these reminders that other religions exist either through working to enact laws unfriendly to other religions or through vandalism and threats.

Atheists will also argue in favor of their beliefs until they are blue in the face, and they are often unable to bring themselves to empathize or understand the religious beliefs of another. This is because their own beliefs are so deeply ingrained that they struggle to contemplate that another set of beliefs might contain some truth. That isnt logical becomes much the same sort of rote response of denial that atheists mock when Christians claim something isnt in the Bible. Similarly, atheists will only accept what their religion values as proof. The rejection of all evidence beyond what their own belief system accepts is once again a sign of a zealous, and, in some cases, fanatical, religious adherent.

Atheism fits some of the most widely used and highly respected scholarly definitions of religion, and it also acts as a religion in practice. Atheism influences every aspect of its adherents daily lives just as Christianity or Buddhism does for Christians and Buddhists. It is not, however, often considered to be a religion. The most common misconception that keeps people from correctly labeling atheism a religion is the idea that religion is confined to beliefs in God, not beliefs about God or the actions taken as a result of those beliefs. Were religion merely beliefs in God, then Christianity, Islam and Judaism would technically be the same religion, and no one with any sense is going to argue that those three are actually one religion. As such, perhaps it is time that the list of major world religions is expanded to include the latest serious player on the religious stage: atheism.

Read more:
Is Atheism a Religion? | What Makes Atheism a Religion ...

After turning to Christ, the secretary for an organization that is working to spread atheism in Kenya has stepped down from his post.

In what WNDdescribed as a "highly unusual announcement," the Atheists in Kenya (AIK) group said in a press release that Mr. Seth Mahiga is stepping down from his position because "he has found Jesus Christ and is no longer interested in promoting atheism in Kenya."

On Saturday evening, Mahiga, who has been a member of the organization for one and a half years, submitted his resignation, reports the Star.

The president of AIK, Harrison Mumia, expressed his gratitude to Seth for dedicating his time to the organization, and also wished him the best as he embarks on his next phase of life.

"We wish Seth all the best in his new found relations with Jesus Christ. We thank him for having served the society with dedication over the last one and half years," he said in the press statement.

Mumia then urged Kenyans interested in the position to send in their resumes.

"The position of the secretary of the Society has been rendered vacant. We are calling upon Kenyan atheists who would wish to join our Executive Committee to send their CVs," he wrote.

Since the beginning of AIK, the organization has fought against the inculcation of Christian values in the Kenyan school system, and on an annual basis advocates for the abolishment of the National Day of Prayer, reports UG Christian News.

According to NTV Kenya, the atheist organization urges Kenya to incorporate science and skepticism in its affairs, as well as a logical and humanistic approach to morality, citing the approximately 2.5 percent of Kenyans who claim having no religion or specifying no connection.

Christians are celebrating

After resigning, Mahiga's resignation generated various comments on social media, with the bulk of his fans thanking him for the daring choice. A few others suggested that Mumia do the same.

"Thank you God you have done it again. You changed Paul, you changed Zacchaeus the tax collector, you have now changed Seth Mahiga. May you also change our corrupt politicians," one Christian commented.

"Welcome to the world of reality and truth. The light shineth in the darkness and darkness cannot comprehend it!" Glory to Jesus," said another.

Mahiga further said in a church gathering, which was taped by Elevate TV Kenya and posted online by AIK, that he had been having personal troubles prior to deciding to step down as the organization's secretary, noted Eternity News. In the short video, the pastor is seen in the pulpit with Mahiga and the audience, encouraging everyone to offer God glory by saying "Hallelujah!" He then declared that "the Bible says: 'Every knee shall bow ...'"

Elevate TV postedthe same video on Facebook with the caption, "Seth Mahiga, former Atheist Secretary General, confesses Jesus Christ at Life Church International Nairobi after resigning."

According to Cultural Atlas, about 82% of Kenyans describe themselves as Christians, with the majority classifying themselves as Protestant or Catholic. There are 11.2% of the population that identify as Muslim, 1.7% as traditionalists, and 1.6% as "other."

See more here:
Atheist Group Announces Resignation Of Former Secretary. The Reason? 'He Has Found Jesus Christ' - Christianity Daily

Photo: Lawrence Krauss, in Science Uprising, Discovery Institute.

One of the ironies of the conversation between intelligent design advocates and proponents of aggressive scientific atheism is that ID, at its cutting edge, owes a great debt to the atheists. That cutting edge is represented by philosopher of science Stephen Meyers new book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.

As Dr. Meyer explains, the debt is twofold. First, biologist Richard Dawkins and others have a special talent for framing questions about how science may illuminate the ultimate question we can ask about life, the universe, and their origin. Dawkins is right that the question about Gods existence is also a question about science, and can be adjudicated as such. Second, it was a debate with cosmologist Lawrence Krauss that prompted Meyer to look more deeply into the evidence of physics and cosmology. That allowed him to draw those fields into the argument he had previously developed from biology which, in turn, permitted extending the case for intelligent design, in a generic sense, to the case for a personal God. So, everyone who cares about the most important mystery that humans can ever consider should say Thank you! to Dawkins, Krauss, and their associates. Watch:

Original post:
Our Debt to the Scientific Atheists - Discovery Institute