Atheism and Anti-Theism: What's the Difference?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it's understandable if many people fail to realize that they aren't the same. Making note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren't anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all and not always.
When defined broadly as simply the absence of belief in gods, atheism covers territory that isn't quite compatible with anti-theism. People who are indifferent to the existence of alleged gods are atheists because they don't believe in the existence of any gods, but at the same time, this indifference prevents them from being anti-theists as well. To a degree, this describes many if not most atheists because there are plenty of alleged gods they simply don't care about and, therefore, they also don't care enough to attack belief in such gods. If a person cares enough to deny that gods exist, then perhaps they care enough to attack belief in gods as well — but not always. Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it. It also happens occasionally that people make the same argument in reverse: that even though something is true, believing it is harmful or dangerous and should be discouraged. Rational atheism may be based on many things: lack of evidence from theists, arguments which prove that god-concepts are self-contradictory, the existence of evil in the world, etc. Rational atheism cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is harmful because even something that's harmful may be true. Not everything that's true about the universe is good for us, though. Rational anti-theism may be based on a belief in one of many possible harms which theism could do; it cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is false. Not all false beliefs are necessarily harmful and even those that are aren't necessarily worth fighting. |
Anonymous
| Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris seem to be anti-theists. If you've listened to them, you can see what anti-theists believe. (Hitchens once said he was from the "extremist wing" of the school atheism.). |
Anonymous
| Instead of being so hell-bent on firm definitions that you can lump everyone into, why not ask individuals what they think and leave the labels out of it? |
Anonymous
I agree. Hitchens described himself as an anti-theist, who saw all religions as false, harmful, and authoritarian. Hitchens, Christopher (2005). Letters to a Young Contrarian. Basic Books. pp. 55, 57. ISBN 0-465-03033-5. I am [not a] part of the generalised agnosticism of our culture. I am not even an atheist so much as I am an anti-theist... all religions are versions of the same untruth... the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful... cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and monitoring... I am [not] privy to the secrets of the universe or its creator... even [the best of the theisms] are complicit in this quiet and irrational authoritarianism.“ |
Anonymous
|
Ok Dawkins:
Since then, he has written another 10 influential books on science and evolution, plus The God Delusion, his atheist blockbuster, and become the most prominent of the so-called New Atheists – a group of writers, including Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who published anti-religion polemics in the years after 9/11. Since his arrival on Twitter in 2008, his public pronouncements have become more combative – and, at times, flamboyantly irritable: “How dare you force your dopey unsubstantiated superstitions on innocent children too young to resist?,” he tweeted last June. “How DARE you?” These days, Dawkins describes himself as “a communicator”. But depending on your point of view, he is also a hero, a heathen, or a liability. Many of his recent statements – on subjects ranging from the lack of Nobel prize-winning Muslim scientists to the “immorality” of failing to abort a foetus with Down’s syndrome – have sparked outraged responses (some of which Dawkins read aloud on a recent YouTube video, which perhaps won him back a few friends). For some, his controversial positions have started to undermine both his reputation as a scientist and his own anti-religious crusade. Friends who vigorously defend both his cause and his character worry that Dawkins might be at risk of self-sabotage. “He could be seriously damaging his long-term legacy,” the philosopher Daniel Dennett said of Dawkins’s public skirmishes. It is a legacy, Dennett believes, that should reflect the “masterpiece” that was The Selfish Gene and Dawkins’s major contribution to our understanding of life. As for Twitter: “I wish he wouldn’t do it,” Krauss said. “I told him that.” For Dawkins, the science has always come first; his atheism is simply a natural extension of a lifelong quest to do Darwin’s work on Earth. As for the suggestion his public interventions over the past few years have done more harm than good – both to himself and his cause: “That does worry me,” Dawkins conceded, and yet he cannot quite resist the urge to wade in. “I think there is a curious desire in humans, maybe not all humans but certainly in me, to put things right,” he said. “There’s a joke in the New Yorker or something like that, of a man at a computer. It’s obviously very late and his wife is begging him to come to bed. He’s saying, ‘I can’t come to bed. Somebody’s wrong on the internet.’” Some former intellectual allies, such as the Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse – who lives and works in the US, where he has fought legal battles to ban the teaching of creationism in schools – see Dawkins’s antagonism as more likely to alienate than convert. To Ruse, Dawkins shows no interest in engaging with his opponents in order to defeat their arguments – “hammering Islam,” for example, “without any real understanding”. “His treatment of philosophical ideas in The God Delusion is frequently funny and certainly good journalism,” Ruse said, “but to put it politely it is deeply uninformed.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation It’s quite a long article, but the crux is (to me) is that Dawkins is engaging online in deeply offensive ways, often from a place of (kindly putting it) disinformation. And it’s making people that used to be his allies (kindly putting it) uncomfortable. He’s crossing from atheism to anti-theism in a very public and possibly harmful way. (To the atheist movement, it seems.) |
Anonymous
|
https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/
Salon says Sam Harris has lost it. Is this accurate? 
Apparently there is a schism and how any of it will play out seems uncertain. |
Anonymous
From Wikipedia:
Sam Harris is someone I knew very little of until recently. The more that I find out about him, the less I like. Oh well. |
Anonymous
|
Sociologist William Stahl said, "What is striking about the current debate is the frequency with which the New Atheists are portrayed as mirror images of religious fundamentalists."
Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey take issue with what they regard as "the evangelical nature of the New Atheism, which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible." They believe they have found similarities between New Atheism and evangelical Christianity and conclude that the all-consuming nature of both "encourages endless conflict without progress" between both extremities. The atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse has made the claim that Richard Dawkins would fail "introductory" courses on the study of "philosophy or religion" (such as courses on the philosophy of religion), courses which are offered, for example, at many educational institutions such as colleges and universities around the world. Ruse also claims that the movement of New Atheism—which is perceived, by him, to be a "bloody disaster"—makes him ashamed, as a professional philosopher of science, to be among those holding to an atheist position, particularly as New Atheism does science a "grave disservice" and does a "disservice to scholarship" at more general level. IMO Ruse is correct. Dawkins does not even have a basic understanding of Christianity. Many British scientists think he misrepresents science in his writings and speeches. |
Anonymous
Little-known academics get attention by criticizing well-known academics. They, of course are entitled to their opinions. By the way, Dawkins was raised in the Anglican Church. |
Anonymous
| To be fair, most religious people are mostly anti-theist too. Just ask a devout Catholic person what they think of worshipping Thor. Our an Orthodox Jewish person what they think about worshipping Jesus. |
Anonymous
Exactly - or what one denomination of Christianity thinks about another. There wouldn't be so many denominations if people agreed on how to worship. |
Anonymous
By the way, the word "worship" in relation to attending religious services is pretty hilarious, when you consider that so many denominations of the same religion (e.g., Christianity) have their own specific ways of worship that they decide, at some point, is the only correct way. It's just humans disagreeing with each other. Sometimes we do it with war, killing off those we disagree with. Sometimes we can settle our disagreements by just starting a new way to "worship" the same god and even the same son of the same god. |
Anonymous
|
M both probably. I don’t believe in god, and I think organized religion is a negative force in the world.
And I’m doing just fine, thanks. |
Anonymous
I'd go evn father and say there are billions of believers in one god or another - and probably a billion or more different definitions of what god is. |
Anonymous
And fundamentalist Christians think their god is the only true god and everyone else is going to hell! |