Hubbry Logo
AtheismAtheismMain
Open search
Atheism
Community hub
Atheism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Atheism
Atheism
from Wikipedia

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Historically, evidence of atheistic viewpoints can be traced back to classical antiquity and early Indian philosophy. In the Western world, atheism declined after Christianity gained prominence. The 16th century and the Age of Enlightenment marked the resurgence of atheistic thought in Europe. Atheism achieved a significant position worldwide in the 20th century. Estimates of those who have an absence of belief in a god range from 500 million to 1.1 billion people.[1][2] Atheist organizations have defended the autonomy of science, freedom of thought, secularism, and secular ethics.

Arguments for atheism range from philosophical to social approaches. Rationales for not believing in deities include the lack of evidence,[3][4] the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, the rejection of concepts that cannot be falsified, and the argument from nonbelief.[3][5] Nonbelievers contend that atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities;[6] therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.[7]

Definition

[edit]

Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism,[8] contesting what supernatural entities are considered gods, whether atheism is a philosophical position or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection; however, the norm is to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism.[9][10][11] Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,[12][13][14][15] but has also been contrasted with it.[16][17][18]

Implicit vs. explicit

[edit]
A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism (sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population).
Explicit strong/positive atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
Explicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement.
Implicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity but have not explicitly rejected such belief.

Some of the ambiguity involved in defining atheism arises from the definitions of words like deity and god. The variety of wildly different conceptions of God and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.[19] With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts.[20] Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has been defined as the absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[21] Similarly, George H. Smith suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[22]

Implicit atheism is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief. It is usual to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism.[23][10][24] For the purposes of his paper on "philosophical atheism", Ernest Nagel contested including the mere absence of theistic belief as a type of atheism.[25] Graham Oppy classifies as innocents those who never considered the question because they lack any understanding of what a god is, for example one-month-old babies.[26]

Negative vs. positive

[edit]

Philosophers such as Antony Flew[27] and Michael Martin[19] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. Michael Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism.[14][12] Agnostic atheism encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.[15] However, many agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism.[28][29]

Richard Dawkins

According to atheists' arguments, unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions.[30] Atheist criticism of agnosticism says that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply an equal probability of either possibility.[31] Australian philosopher J.J.C. Smart argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalized philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[32] Consequently, some atheist authors, such as Richard Dawkins, prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic, and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[33]

Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so accepted in the Western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are in denial.[34] Some atheists have challenged the need for the term "atheism". In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.[35]

Etymology

[edit]
The Greek word "atheoi" αθεοι ("[those who are] without god") as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians 2:12, on the early 3rd-century Papyrus 46.

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render átheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin átheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[36]

The term atheist (from the French athée), in the sense of "one who ... denies the existence of God or gods",[37] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[38] and again in 1571.[39] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[40] The term atheism was derived from the French athéisme,[41] and appears in English about 1587.[42]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[a] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as "disbelief in God".[19]

Arguments

[edit]

Epistemological arguments

[edit]

Skepticism, based on the ideas of David Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. Hume, however, held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts should be rejected as "sophistry and illusion".[43]

Michael Martin argues that atheism is a justified and rational true belief, but offers no extended epistemological justification because current theories are in a state of controversy. Martin instead argues for "mid-level principles of justification that are in accord with our ordinary and scientific rational practice."[44]

Other arguments for atheism that can be classified as epistemological or ontological, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful." Theological noncognitivism holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.[45][46]

Ontological arguments

[edit]
According to naturalism, nature is all-encompassing.

Most atheists lean toward ontological monism: the belief that there is only one kind of fundamental substance. The philosophical materialism is a view that matter is the fundamental substance in nature. This omits the possibility of a non-material divine being.[47] According to physicalism, only physical entities exist.[47][48] Philosophies opposed to the materialism or physicalism include idealism, dualism and other forms of monism.[49][50][51] Naturalism is also used to describe the view that everything that exists is fundamentally natural, and that there are no supernatural phenomena.[47] According to naturalist view, science can explain the world with physical laws and through natural phenomena.[52] Philosopher Graham Oppy references a PhilPapers survey that says 56.5% of philosophers in academics lean toward physicalism; 49.8% lean toward naturalism.[53]

According to Graham Oppy, direct arguments for atheism aim at showing theism fails on its own terms, while indirect arguments are those inferred from direct arguments in favor of something else that is inconsistent with theism. For example, Oppy says arguing for naturalism is an argument for atheism since naturalism and theism "cannot both be true".[54]: 53  Fiona Ellis describes the "expansive naturalism" of John McDowell, James Griffin, and David Wiggins while also asserting there are things in human experience which cannot be explained in such terms, such as the concept of value, leaving room for theism.[55] Christopher C. Knight asserts a theistic naturalism.[56] Nevertheless, Oppy argues that a strong naturalism favors atheism, though he finds the best direct arguments against theism to be the evidential problem of evil, and arguments concerning the contradictory nature of God were one to exist.[54]: 55–60 

Logical arguments

[edit]

Some atheists hold the view that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal god of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), non-physicality, justice, and mercy.[3]

Theodicean atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods by theologians. They argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is evil and suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people.[5]

Epicurus is credited with first expounding the problem of evil. David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions:[57] "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Similar arguments have been made in Buddhist philosophy.[58] Vasubandhu (4th/5th century) outlined numerous Buddhist arguments against God.[59]

Secular accounts of religion

[edit]

Philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach[60] and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud have argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs.[61] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to Mikhail Bakunin, "the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory, and practice." He reversed Voltaire's aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him, writing instead that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."[62]

Atheism and ethics

[edit]

Secular ethics

[edit]
Lecture to the Atheist Community of San Jose in 2017.

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. He found that there are much lower concentrations of atheism and secularity in poorer, less developed nations (particularly in Africa and South America) than in the richer industrialized democracies.[63][64] His findings relating specifically to atheism in the US were that compared to religious people in the US, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, closed-minded, and authoritarian, and in US states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious states, the murder rate is higher than average.[65][66]

Joseph Baker and Buster Smith assert that one of the common themes of atheism is that most atheists "typically construe atheism as more moral than religion".[67] One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary: that denying the existence of a god either leads to moral relativism and leaves one with no moral or ethical foundation,[68] or renders life meaningless and miserable.[69] Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées.[70] There is also a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes".[71] There have, however, been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes".[72] There exist normative ethical systems that do not require principles and rules to be given by a deity.

According to Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, the role of the gods in determining right from wrong is either unnecessary or arbitrary. The argument that morality must be derived from God, and cannot exist without a wise creator, has been a persistent feature of political if not so much philosophical debate.[73][74][75] Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend on a lawmaker in the same way that laws do.[76]

Philosophers Susan Neiman[77] and Julian Baggini[78] among others assert that behaving ethically only because of a divine mandate is not true ethical behavior but merely blind obedience. Baggini argues that atheism is a superior basis for ethics, claiming that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary to evaluate the morality of the imperatives themselves—to be able to discern, for example, that "thou shalt steal" is immoral even if one's religion instructs it—and that atheists, therefore, have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.[79]

Criticism of religion

[edit]
Author José Saramago criticizes religion.

Some prominent atheists—most recently Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, and following such thinkers as Bertrand Russell, Robert G. Ingersoll, Voltaire, and novelist José Saramago—have criticized religions, citing harmful aspects of religious practices and doctrines.[80]

The 19th-century German political theorist and sociologist Karl Marx called religion "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". He goes on to say, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."[81]

Sam Harris criticizes Western religion's reliance on divine authority as lending itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism.[82] Multiple studies have discovered there to be a correlation between religious fundamentalism and extrinsic religion (when religion is held because it serves ulterior interests)[83] and authoritarianism, dogmatism, and prejudice.[84]

These arguments—combined with historical events that are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the Crusades, inquisitions, witch trials, and terrorist attacks—have been used in response to claims of beneficial effects of belief in religion.[85] Believers counter-argue that some regimes that espouse atheism, such as the Soviet Union, have also been guilty of mass murder.[86][87] In response to those claims, atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have stated that Stalin's atrocities were influenced not by atheism but by dogmatic ideology, and that while Stalin and Mao happened to be atheists, they did not do their deeds in the name of atheism.[88][89][90]

Atheism, religions, and spirituality

[edit]

People who self-identify as atheists are often assumed to be irreligious, but some sects within major religions reject the existence of a personal, creator deity.[91] It has been said that atheism is not mutually exclusive with respect to some religious and spiritual belief systems, including modern Neopagan movements.[92][93] In recent years, certain religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as atheistic or humanistic Judaism[94][95] and Christian atheists.[96][97][98] Atheism is accepted as a valid philosophical position within some varieties of Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism.[99]

History

[edit]

Early Indian religions

[edit]

Ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic are documented in the Vedic period[100] and the classical antiquity.[101] Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[100] Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, Samkhya, the oldest philosophical school of thought does not accept God, and the early Mimamsa also rejected the notion of God.[102]

The thoroughly materialistic and anti-theistic philosophical Chārvāka (or Lokāyata) a school that originated in India around the 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India, similar to the Greek Cyrenaic school. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as heterodox due to its rejection of the authority of Vedas and hence is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy. It is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement in ancient India.[103][104]

Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta explain in An Introduction to Indian Philosophy that our understanding of Chārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools:[105] "Though materialism in some form or other, has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these." Other Indian philosophies generally regarded as atheistic include Classical Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. The rejection of a personal creator, "God", is also seen in Jainism and Buddhism in India.[106]

Classical antiquity

[edit]
Lucretius pointing to the casus, the downward movement of the atoms. In his work De rerum natura, Lucretius stated that everything consists of material substance moving in infinity.

Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy,[107][101] but atheism in the modern sense was extremely rare in ancient Greece.[108][101] Pre-Socratic Atomists such as Democritus attempted to explain the world in a purely materialistic way and interpreted religion as a human reaction to natural phenomena,[109] but did not explicitly deny the gods' existence.[109][110]

Anaxagoras, whom Irenaeus calls "the atheist",[111] was accused of impiety and condemned for stating that "the sun is a type of incandescent stone", an affirmation with which he tried to deny the divinity of the celestial bodies.[112] In the late fifth century BCE, the Greek lyric poet Diagoras of Melos was sentenced to death in Athens under the charge of being a "godless person" (ἄθεος) after he made fun of the Eleusinian Mysteries, but he fled the city to escape punishment.[108][109] In post-classical antiquity, philosophers such as Cicero and Sextus Empiricus described Diagoras as an "atheist" who categorically denied the existence of the gods,[113][114] but in modern scholarship Marek Winiarczyk has defended the view that Diagoras was not an atheist in the modern sense, in a view that has proved influential.[108] On the other hand, the verdict has been challenged by Tim Whitmarsh, who argues that Diagoras rejected the gods on the basis of the problem of evil, and this argument was in turn alluded to in Euripides' fragmentary play Bellerophon.[115] A fragment from a lost Attic drama that featured Sisyphus, which has been attributed to both Critias and Euripides, claims that a clever man invented "the fear of the gods" in order to frighten people into behaving morally.[116][117][108]

Does then anyone say there are gods in heaven? There are not, there are not, if a man is willing not to give foolish credence to the ancient story. Consider for yourselves, don't form an opinion on the basis of my words!

— Bellerophon denying the existence of the gods, from Euripides' Bellerophon c. 5th century BCE, fr. 286 TrGF 1-5[118]

Protagoras has sometimes been taken to be an atheist, but rather espoused agnostic views, commenting that "Concerning the gods I am unable to discover whether they exist or not, or what they are like in form; for there are many hindrances to knowledge, the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life."[119][120] The Athenian public associated Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE) with the trends in pre-Socratic philosophy towards naturalistic inquiry and the rejection of divine explanations for phenomena.[109][121] Aristophanes' comic play The Clouds (performed 423 BCE) portrays Socrates as teaching his students that the traditional Greek deities do not exist.[109][121] Socrates was later tried and executed under the charge of not believing in the gods of the state and instead worshipping foreign gods.[109][121] Socrates himself vehemently denied the charges of atheism at his trial.[109][121][122] From a survey of these 5th-century BCE philosophers, David Sedley has concluded that none of them openly defended radical atheism, but since Classical sources clearly attest to radical atheist ideas Athens probably had an "atheist underground".[123]

Religious skepticism continued into the Hellenistic period, and from this period the most important Greek thinker in the development of atheism was the philosopher Epicurus (c. 300 BCE).[101] Drawing on the ideas of Democritus and the Atomists, he espoused a materialistic philosophy according to which the universe was governed by the laws of chance without the need for divine intervention (see scientific determinism).[124] Although Epicurus still maintained that the gods existed,[125][101][124] he believed that they were uninterested in human affairs.[124] The aim of the Epicureans was to attain ataraxia ("peace of mind") and one important way of doing this was by exposing fear of divine wrath as irrational. The Epicureans also denied the existence of an afterlife and the need to fear divine punishment after death.[124]

Euhemerus (c. 300 BCE) published his view that the gods were only the deified rulers and founders of the past.[126] Although not strictly an atheist, Euhemerus was later criticized by Plutarch for having "spread atheism over the whole inhabited earth by obliterating the gods".[127] In the 3rd century BCE, the Hellenistic philosophers Theodorus Cyrenaicus[113][128] and Strato of Lampsacus[129] were also reputed to deny the existence of the gods. The Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus (c. 200 CE)[130] compiled a large number of ancient arguments against the existence of gods, recommending that one should suspend judgment regarding the matter.[131] His relatively large volume of surviving works had a lasting influence on later philosophers.[132]

The meaning of "atheist" changed over the course of classical antiquity.[108] Early Christians were widely reviled as "atheists" because they did not believe in the existence of the Graeco-Roman deities.[133][108][134][135] During the Roman Empire, Christians were executed for their rejection of the Roman gods in general and the Imperial cult of ancient Rome in particular.[135][136] There was, however, a heavy struggle between Christians and pagans, in which each group accused the other of atheism, for not practicing the religion which they considered correct.[137] When Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Theodosius I in 381, heresy became a punishable offense.[136]

Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance

[edit]

During the Early Middle Ages, the Islamic world experienced a Golden Age. Along with advances in science and philosophy, Arab and Persian lands produced rationalists who were skeptical about revealed religion, such as Muhammad al Warraq (fl. 9th century), Ibn al-Rawandi (827–911), and Abu Bakr al-Razi (c. 865–925),[138] as well as outspoken atheists such as al-Maʿarri (973–1058). Al-Ma'arri wrote and taught that religion itself was a "fable invented by the ancients"[139] and that humans were "of two sorts: those with brains, but no religion, and those with religion, but no brains".[140] Despite the fact that these authors were relatively prolific writers, little of their work survives, mainly being preserved through quotations and excerpts in later works by Muslim apologists attempting to refute them.[141]

De rerum natura by Lucretius, between 1475 and 1494.

In Europe, the espousal of atheistic views was rare during the Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages (see Medieval Inquisition).[142][143] There were, however, movements within this period that furthered heterodox conceptions of the Christian god, including differing views of the nature, transcendence, and knowability of God. William of Ockham inspired anti-metaphysical tendencies with his nominalist limitation of human knowledge to singular objects, and asserted that the divine essence could not be intuitively or rationally apprehended by human intellect. Sects deemed heretical such as the Waldensians were also accused of being atheistic.[144] The resulting division between faith and reason influenced later radical and reformist theologians.[142]

The Renaissance did much to expand the scope of free thought and skeptical inquiry. Individuals such as Leonardo da Vinci sought experimentation as a means of explanation instead of arguments from religious authority. Critics of religion and the Church during this time included Niccolò Machiavelli who, although never avowing his atheism in his writings, is claimed to be an atheist. Other alleged critics are Bonaventure des Périers, Michel de Montaigne, and François Rabelais.[132]

Early modern period

[edit]

Historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that the Reformation had paved the way for atheists by attacking the authority of the Catholic Church, which in turn "quietly inspired other thinkers to attack the authority of the new Protestant churches".[145] Deism gained influence in France, Prussia, and England. In 1546, French scholar Etienne Dolet was executed upon accusation of being an atheist.[146] The philosopher Baruch Spinoza was "probably the first well known 'semi-atheist' to announce himself in a Christian land in the modern era", according to Blainey. Spinoza believed that natural laws explained the workings of the universe. In 1661, he published his Short Treatise on God.[147]

Criticism of Christianity became increasingly frequent in the 17th and 18th centuries, especially in France and England. Some Protestant thinkers, such as Thomas Hobbes, espoused a materialist philosophy and skepticism toward supernatural occurrences. By the late 17th century, deism came to be openly espoused by intellectuals.[148] The first known explicit atheist was the German critic of religion Matthias Knutzen in his three writings of 1674.[149] He was followed by two other explicit atheist writers, the Polish ex-Jesuit philosopher Kazimierz Łyszczyński (who most likely authored the world's first treatise on the non-existence of God[150]) and in the 1720s by the French priest Jean Meslier.[151]

Denis Diderot, atheist and editor of Encyclopédie.

In the course of the 18th century, other openly atheistic thinkers followed, such as Baron d'Holbach, Jacques-André Naigeon, and other French materialists.[152] Baron d'Holbach was a prominent figure in the French Enlightenment who is best known for his atheism and for his voluminous writings against religion, the most famous of them being The System of Nature (1770) but also Christianity Unveiled.

The source of man's unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error.

— Baron d'Holbach, System of Nature, 1770[153]

In Great Britain, William Hammon and physician Mathew Turner authored a pamphlet in response to Joseph Priestley's Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever. Theirs was the first work in English to openly defend atheism, and implied that established sentiment of Christianity made speaking up in defense of atheism an act with a reasonable expectation of public punishment.[154]

Although Voltaire is widely considered to have strongly contributed to atheistic thinking during the Revolution, he also considered fear of God to have discouraged further disorder, having said "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[155] The philosopher David Hume developed a skeptical epistemology grounded in empiricism, and Immanuel Kant's philosophy has strongly questioned the very possibility of metaphysical knowledge. Both philosophers undermined the metaphysical basis of natural theology and criticized classical arguments for the existence of God.[43][156]

One goal of the French Revolution was a restructuring and subordination of the clergy with respect to the state through the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Attempts to enforce it led to anti-clerical violence and the expulsion of many clerics from France, lasting until the Thermidorian Reaction. The radical Jacobins seized power in 1793. The Jacobins were deists and introduced the Cult of the Supreme Being as a new French state religion.

In the latter half of the 19th century, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophers. German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach considered God to be a human invention and religious activities to be wish-fulfillment. He influenced philosophers such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, who denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion.[157] In 1842, George Holyoake was the last person imprisoned in Great Britain due to atheist beliefs. Stephen Law notes that he may have also been the first imprisoned on such a charge. Law states that Holyoake "first coined the term 'secularism'".[158][159]

20th century

[edit]
Bertrand Russell

Atheism advanced in many societies in the 20th century. Atheistic thought found recognition in a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as Marxism, logical positivism, existentialism, humanism and feminism,[160] and the general scientific movement.[161] Proponents of naturalism such as Bertrand Russell and John Dewey emphatically rejected belief in God. Analytical philosophers such as J.N. Findlay and J.J.C. Smart argued against the existence of God.[32][162]

State atheism emerged in Eastern Europe and Asia, particularly in the Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin,[163] and in Communist China under Mao Zedong. Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheists.[164][165] Stalin softened his opposition to the Orthodox church in order to improve public acceptance of his regime during the second world war.[166]

In 1966, Time magazine asked "Is God Dead?"[167] in response to the Death of God theological movement, citing the estimation that nearly half of all people in the world lived under an anti-religious power, and millions more in Africa, Asia, and South America seemed to lack knowledge of the Christian view of theology.[168]

Leaders like Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, a prominent atheist leader of India, fought against Hinduism and Brahmins for discriminating and dividing people in the name of caste and religion.[169][170] In the United States, atheist Vashti McCollum was the plaintiff in a 1948 Supreme Court case that struck down religious education in US public schools.[171] Madalyn Murray O'Hair was one of the most influential American atheists; she brought forth the 1963 Supreme Court case Murray v. Curlett which banned compulsory prayer in public schools.[172] The Freedom From Religion Foundation was co-founded by Anne Nicol Gaylor and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976 in the United States. It promotes the separation of church and state.[173][174]

21st century

[edit]
Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Julia Galef in 2015

"New Atheism" is a movement among some early-21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises".[175] The movement is commonly associated with Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor J. Stenger.[176][177] The religiously motivated terrorist events of 9/11 and the partially successful attempts to change the American science curriculum to include creationist ideas, together with support for those ideas from the religious right, have been cited by "new" atheists as evidence of a need to move toward a more secular society.[178]

Melbourne hosted the first Global Atheist Convention in 2010 (branded as the largest event of its kind in the world),[179] sponsored by the Atheist Foundation of Australia and Atheist Alliance International. It took place at the Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre from 12 to 14 March that year. Over 2,000 delegates attended, with all available tickets selling out more than five weeks prior to the event.[180] A second conference was held, also in Melbourne, from 13 to 15 April 2012. A third convention, planned for February 2018, was cancelled, apparently because of insufficient interest.[181]

Demographics

[edit]
Nonreligious population by country, 2010[182]

It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Respondents to religious-belief polls may define "atheism" differently or draw different distinctions between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs.[183] A 2010 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 9.6% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.0%. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.[184] The average annual change for atheism from 2000 to 2010 was −0.17%.[184] Scholars have indicated that global atheism may be in decline as a percentage of the global population due to irreligious countries having the lowest birth rates in the world and religious countries generally having higher birth rates.[185][1][186]

According to global Win-Gallup International studies, 13% of respondents were "convinced atheists" in 2012,[187] 11% were "convinced atheists" in 2015,[188] and in 2017, 9% were "convinced atheists".[189] As of 2012, the top 10 surveyed countries with people who viewed themselves as "convinced atheists" were China (47%), Japan (31%), the Czech Republic (30%), France (29%), South Korea (15%), Germany (15%), Netherlands (14%), Austria (10%), Iceland (10%), Australia (10%), and Ireland (10%).[190] A 2012 study by the NORC found that East Germany had the highest percentage of atheists while Czech Republic had the second highest amount.[191] The number of atheists per country is strongly correlated with the level of security for both the individual and society, with some exceptions.[192]

Europe

[edit]
Percentage of people in various European countries who said: "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force." (2010)[193]

According to the 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, the percentage of those polled who agreed with the statement "you don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" varied from a high percentage in France (40%), Czech Republic (37%), Sweden (34%), Netherlands (30%), and Estonia (29%); medium-high percentage in Germany (27%), Belgium (27%), UK (25%); to very low in Poland (5%), Greece (4%), Cyprus (3%), Malta (2%), and Romania (1%), with the European Union as a whole at 20%.[194] In a 2012 Eurobarometer poll on discrimination in the European Union, 16% of those polled considered themselves non-believers/agnostics, and 7% considered themselves atheists.[195]

According to a Pew Research Center survey in 2012, about 18% of Europeans are religiously unaffiliated, including agnostics and atheists.[196] According to the same survey, the religiously unaffiliated are the majority of the population only in two European countries: Czech Republic (75%) and Estonia (60%).[196]

Asia

[edit]

There are three countries and one special administrative region of China or regions where the religiously unaffiliated make up a majority of the population: North Korea (71%), Japan (57%), Hong Kong (56%), and China (52%).[196]

Australasia

[edit]

According to the 2021 Australian Census, 38% of Australians have "no religion", a category that includes atheists.[197] In a 2018 census, 48.2% of New Zealanders reported having no religion, up from 30% in 1991.[198]

United States

[edit]
Symbol of atheism endorsed by the Atheist Alliance International[199][200]

According to the World Values Survey, 4.4% of Americans self-identified as atheists in 2014.[201] However, the same survey showed that 11.1% of all respondents stated "no" when asked if they believed in God.[201] According to a 2014 report by the Pew Research Center, 3.1% of the US adult population identify as atheist, up from 1.6% in 2007; and within the religiously unaffiliated (or "no religion") demographic, atheists made up 13.6%.[202] According to the 2015 General Sociological Survey the number of atheists and agnostics in the US has remained relatively flat in the past 23 years since in 1991 only 2% identified as atheist and 4% identified as agnostic and in 2014 only 3% identified as atheists and 5% identified as agnostics.[203]

According to the American Family Survey, 34% were found to be religiously unaffiliated in 2017 (23% "nothing in particular", 6% agnostic, 5% atheist).[204][205] According to the Pew Research Center, in 2014, 22.8% of the American population does not identify with a religion, including atheists (3.1%) and agnostics (4%).[206] According to a PRRI survey, 24% of the population is unaffiliated. Atheists and agnostics combined make up about a quarter of this unaffiliated demographic.[207] According to a 2023 Pew Research Center study, 28% of Americans are religiously unaffiliated.[208]

Arab world

[edit]

In recent years, the profile of atheism has risen substantially in the Arab world.[209] In major cities across the region, such as Cairo, atheists have been organizing in cafés and social media, despite regular crackdowns from authoritarian governments.[209] A 2012 poll by Gallup International revealed that 5% of Saudis considered themselves to be "convinced atheists".[209] However, very few young people in the Arab world have atheists in their circle of friends or acquaintances. According to one study, less than 1% did in Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan; only 3% to 7% in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Palestine.[210] When asked whether they have "seen or heard traces of atheism in [their] locality, community, and society" only about 3% to 8% responded yes in all the countries surveyed. The only exception was the UAE, with a percentage of 51%.[210]

Attitudes toward atheism

[edit]

Statistically, atheists are held in poor regard across the globe. Non-atheists seem to implicitly view atheists as prone to exhibit immoral behaviors.[211] In addition, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center publication, 15% of French people, 45% of Americans, and 99% of Indonesians explicitly believe that a person must believe in God to be moral. Pew furthermore noted that, in a U.S. poll, atheists and Muslims tied for the lowest rating among the major religious demographics on a "feeling thermometer".[212] Also, a study of religious college students found that they were more likely to perceive and interact with atheists negatively after considering their mortality, suggesting that these attitudes may be the result of death anxiety.[213]

Wealth, education, and reasoning style

[edit]
Darwin Day 2012 in Rome organized by Italian atheists and agnostics

Various studies have reported positive correlations between levels of education, wealth, and IQ with atheism.[214][215][216][65] According to 2024 data from Pew Research Center, atheists in the United States are more likely to be white compared to the general U.S. population (77% vs 62%).[217] In a 2008 study, researchers found intelligence to be negatively related to religious belief in Europe and the United States. In a sample of 137 countries, the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God was found to be 0.60.[216] According to evolutionary psychologist Nigel Barber, atheism blossoms in places where most people feel economically secure, particularly in the social democracies of Europe, as there is less uncertainty about the future with extensive social safety nets and better health care resulting in a greater quality of life and higher life expectancy. By contrast, in underdeveloped countries, there are far fewer atheists.[218]

The relationship between atheism and IQ, while statistically significant, is not a large one, and the reason for the relationship is not well understood.[214] One hypothesis is that the negative relationship between IQ and religiosity is mediated by individual differences in nonconformity; in many countries, religious belief is a conformist choice, and there is evidence that more intelligent people are less likely to conform.[219] Another theory is that people of higher IQ are more likely to engage in analytical reasoning, and that disbelief in religion results from the application of higher-level analytical reasoning to the assessment of religious claims.[214]

In a 2017 study, it was shown that compared to religious individuals, atheists have higher reasoning capacities and this difference seemed to be unrelated to sociodemographic factors such as age, education and country of origin.[220] In a 2015 study, researchers found that atheists score higher on cognitive reflection tests than theists, the authors wrote that "The fact that atheists score higher agrees with the literature showing that belief is an automatic manifestation of the mind and its default mode. Disbelieving seems to require deliberative cognitive ability."[221] A 2016 study, in which 4 new studies were reported and a meta-analysis of all previous research on the topic was performed, found that self-identified atheists scored 18.7% higher than theists on the cognitive reflection test and there is a negative correlation between religiosity and analytical thinking. The authors note that recently "it has been argued that analytic thinkers are not actually less religious; rather, the putative association may be a result of religiosity typically being measured after analytic thinking (an order effect)", however, they state: "Our results indicate that the association between analytical thinking and religious disbelief is not caused by a simple order effect. There is good evidence that atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers."[222] The study defined reflectivity as personal judgement beyond intuition, analytical and scientific reasoning, and lower receptivity to absurd, illogical claims. This "analytic atheist" effect has also been found among academic philosophers, even when controlling for about a dozen potential confounds such as education.[223]

Some studies do not detect this correlation between atheism and analytic thinking in all of the countries that they study,[224] suggesting that the relationship between analytic thinking and atheism may depend on culture.[225] There is also evidence that gender may be involved in what has been termed the analytic atheist effect; because men have been found more likely to endorse atheism,[226] and men often perform slightly better on tests of analytic thinking,[227] when not controlling for variables such as math anxiety,[228] the correlation between atheism and analytic reasoning may be partly explained by whatever explains observed gender differences in analytic thinking.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

Atheism denotes the absence of in the of deities, encompassing both the lack of theistic (negative atheism) and the affirmative assertion that no gods exist (positive atheism). This position, derived from a-theos meaning "without god," rejects explanations for reality in favor of naturalistic accounts grounded in empirical observation and reason. Atheism contrasts with but does not inherently prescribe ethics, politics, or metaphysics, though it frequently aligns with toward religious and reliance on scientific methodology.
Historically, atheistic thought traces to ancient civilizations, including the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda in the ancient Indian subcontinent expressing agnosticism about creation—neither existence (sat) nor non-existence (asat), with even gods arriving later and possibly ignorant of origins—alongside Greek philosophers like (341–270 BCE) promoting atomistic that obviated divine creation or intervention, and Roman poet expounding similar views in . Enlightenment figures such as and later advanced atheistic arguments through rational critique of religious institutions, while 20th- and 21st-century "New Atheists" including emphasized evolutionary biology's incompatibility with literal scriptural creation narratives. Despite periodic persecution as heresy, atheism has surged in prevalence amid , industrialization, and expansion; as of 2024, approximately 10% of the global population self-identifies as atheist, with rates exceeding 50% in countries like and Czechia. Atheism's defining characteristics include its non-falsifiability as a mere negation, yet it invites scrutiny of theistic claims via burden-of-proof principles and Occam's razor, favoring simpler explanations absent evidentiary warrant for gods. Notable controversies encompass public distrust of atheists' morality—often rooted in cultural associations of ethics with religion—though cross-national studies reveal no empirical deficit in prosocial behavior or ethical reasoning among nonbelievers compared to the religious. Conversely, implementations of state-mandated atheism in regimes like the Soviet Union correlated with religious suppression, highlighting risks when atheism fuses with ideological absolutism rather than individual disbelief. Overall, atheism underscores causal realism by attributing phenomena to verifiable mechanisms over unproven supernatural agency, contributing to advancements in science and philosophy unbound by doctrinal constraints.

Definitions and Typology

Core Definition and Etymology

Atheism constitutes the position of rejecting belief in the existence of deities, encompassing both the absence of theistic belief and, in stronger forms, the affirmative assertion that no gods exist. This core stance contrasts with theism, which affirms divine existence, and differs from agnosticism, which maintains that the existence of deities is unknown or unknowable. Philosophically, atheism is grounded in the lack of sufficient evidence for supernatural entities, prioritizing empirical observation and rational inquiry over faith-based claims. The term "atheism" originates from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (átheos), a compound of ἀ- (a-, "without") and θεός (theós, "god"), literally denoting "without god" or "godless." In classical Greek usage, átheos initially carried a connotation, applied to those deemed impious or denying the civic gods, as seen in charges against figures like in 399 BCE. The modern English term entered via Middle French athéisme in the , around the 1580s, initially signifying active disbelief in God and rejection of divine order. Over time, its meaning evolved from a label of moral or social deviance to a deliberate philosophical position, reflecting shifts in secular thought amid Enlightenment critiques of religious authority.

Implicit and Explicit Atheism

Implicit atheism denotes the absence of theistic belief in individuals who have not consciously considered or rejected the existence of deities, such as infants, young children prior to exposure to religious concepts, or those in cultures without developed theistic traditions. This category, coined by philosopher George H. Smith in his 1979 work Atheism: The Case Against God, emphasizes a lack of affirmative belief rather than active denial. Smith defined it as applying to any entity incapable of forming theistic beliefs due to cognitive limitations, thereby including non-human animals under a broad atheistic umbrella. Explicit atheism, in contrast, involves the conscious rejection of theistic claims after deliberation, where the individual affirmatively disbelieves in the of gods or deities. Smith distinguished this from implicit forms by the element of intentional evaluation and dismissal of . This form aligns with what some philosophers term "positive atheism," though it does not necessarily entail asserting the impossibility of divine , distinguishing it further from "" atheism. The implicit-explicit dichotomy serves to broaden the scope of atheism beyond overt antagonism toward religion, positioning lack of belief as a default state absent evidence or exposure. Proponents, including Smith, argue it underscores that atheism requires no justification in cases of non-consideration, akin to not believing in unicorns without explicit refutation. Critics contend this semantic expansion risks equivocation, as applying "atheism" to pre-conceptual states like infancy conflates mere absence with philosophical positions, potentially evading burdens of proof in debates over theism. This distinction echoes earlier ideas in Antony Flew's 1972 essay "The Presumption of Atheism," which advocated starting from non-belief until theistic evidence is provided, though Flew focused on negative versus positive atheism without using the implicit-explicit terminology.

Strong and Weak Variants

Weak atheism, also termed negative or implicit atheism, denotes the lack of belief in the existence of any deities, without entailing the positive assertion that deities definitively do not exist. This position arises from the absence of compelling evidence for divine entities, positioning it as a default stance in the absence of proof, as argued by philosopher in his 1972 essay "The Presumption of Atheism," where he contended that the onus lies on theists to substantiate claims of existence rather than on non-believers to disprove them. Weak atheism accommodates varying degrees of toward theistic propositions but stops short of universal negation, rendering it epistemologically modest and compatible with on the knowability of divine matters. In contrast, strong atheism, or positive atheism, advances the affirmative claim that no gods or deities exist whatsoever, often grounded in philosophical arguments such as the problem of evil, inconsistencies in religious texts, or the sufficiency of naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena. This variant demands a higher evidentiary threshold, as it involves not merely withholding assent but actively denying the possibility of agents, a stance defended in Michael Martin's 1990 work Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, which systematically critiques theistic arguments and posits atheism as rationally superior. Strong atheism has been less prevalent among contemporary atheists, who frequently prefer the weak form to evade the burden of proving a universal negative, though historical figures like embodied strong rejection of divine concepts through declarations such as "." The distinction between strong and weak variants underscores a spectrum within atheism, influencing debates on burden of proof and rhetorical strategies in philosophy of religion; weak atheism aligns with evidentialism by suspending belief absent justification, while strong atheism engages in ontological commitments akin to theism's own assertive claims. Empirical surveys, such as those from Pew Research, indicate that most self-identified atheists in Western contexts lean toward weak formulations, emphasizing personal non-belief over dogmatic denial, though precise quantification remains challenging due to terminological variances.

Philosophical Foundations

Arguments Supporting Atheism

Arguments supporting atheism emphasize the absence of empirical evidence for divine existence and the improbability of theistic claims given observed realities. Epistemological approaches assert that belief in requires proportional evidence, which remains lacking despite extensive inquiry. Philosopher Antony Flew's "presumption of atheism" posits non-belief as the rational default until sufficient justification emerges, shifting the burden of proof to theists. reinforced this by critiquing traditional proofs like the first-cause argument, noting that positing merely displaces the question of causation without resolution, as an or uncaused is equally conceivable. The logical problem of evil provides a deductive challenge, arguing that evil's existence contradicts the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence ascribed to God. Formulated by J.L. Mackie in 1955, it holds that a being capable of preventing all suffering yet allowing it fails at least one divine attribute, rendering the coexistence logically impossible. Empirical instances, such as widespread natural disasters and gratuitous animal suffering, amplify this as an evidential concern, suggesting no benevolent overseer intervenes. Inductive arguments further erode theistic probability. Michael Martin's analogy equates God's non-existence to Santa Claus's, justified by inadequate evidence despite thorough investigation and the absence of expected confirmatory signs. The evidential argument from divine hiddenness, advanced by J.L. Schellenberg, contends that a relational would manifest clearly to receptive minds, yet persistent reasonable nonbelief among sincere seekers—estimated at billions globally—indicates hiddenness incompatible with divine love. Scientific naturalism underscores how physical explanations supplant ones. Cosmological models, including the originating approximately 13.8 billion years ago, account for the universe's development through verifiable mechanisms like quantum fluctuations and , eliminating explanatory gaps for divine agency. Biological evolution via , documented in fossil records spanning 3.5 billion years, similarly renders creationist narratives superfluous, favoring parsimony without invoking unobservable entities. These cumulative evidential failures render atheism the position best aligned with observable causality and methodological rigor.

Arguments Challenging Atheism

The cosmological argument posits that the universe's existence requires an uncaused first cause, challenging atheistic explanations reliant on natural processes alone. Formulated in modern terms as the version, it asserts: (1) whatever begins to exist has a cause; (2) the began to exist; therefore, (3) the has a cause transcending space-time and material contingency. Evidence for premise (2) includes the model's indication of a finite originating approximately 13.8 billion years ago from a singularity, corroborated by radiation data from the Planck satellite in 2013-2018 observations. Atheistic hypotheses invoke unobservable entities to avoid a transcendent cause, but these lack empirical verification and introduce greater explanatory complexity without resolving the need for an ultimate initiator. The teleological argument, particularly through the fine-tuning of physical constants, contends that the universe's parameters are improbably calibrated for life, implying intelligent design over random chance. For instance, the strong nuclear force must be tuned to within 1 part in 10^16 of its observed value for stable atoms to form; deviations would collapse stars or prevent nucleosynthesis. Similarly, the cosmological constant's value is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^120, as calculated from quantum field theory expectations, where even slight alterations would yield a universe either collapsing immediately or expanding too rapidly for galaxies. These probabilities render naturalistic emergence via chance or undiscovered laws statistically untenable, with physicists like Roger Penrose estimating the low-entropy initial state of the universe at 1 in 10^(10^123). While atheists propose multiverses generating varied constants, this shifts the explanatory burden without testable predictions, violating Occam's razor by positing infinite unobservables. The argument asserts that objective moral values and duties exist, necessitating a transcendent moral lawgiver, as atheism reduces to subjective preferences or evolutionary byproducts lacking binding force. Premise: if does not exist, objective morals do not; yet objective morals do exist, as evidenced by universal intuitions against acts like gratuitous child , independent of . Evolutionary explanations account for adaptive behaviors but not their moral oughtness, as favors survival, not truth or justice—e.g., kin altruism explains tribal loyalty but not condemning intra-group exploitation as intrinsically wrong. Philosophers like argued that this "moral law" within humans points to a divine mind, as mere chemical processes yield no categorical imperatives. Atheistic , such as , falter on defining "good" without circularity or imposing subjective aggregates as absolute. The argument from consciousness challenges materialistic atheism by highlighting the "hard problem" of subjective experience (), which physical descriptions fail to explain or reduce. posits as emergent from brain states, but no neural correlate accounts for why electrochemical firings produce felt sensations like the , rather than zombie-like functionality without . ' zombie argument demonstrates logical possibility: a physically identical world without is conceivable, implying is non-physical and non-reducible. Alvin Plantinga's extends this: if beliefs arise solely from unguided evolution, their truth-reliability is low (probability <0.5), undermining atheistic confidence in itself, as optimizes for survival, not veridical perception—e.g., a false in pursuing mates could still propagate genes. This self-defeat positions atheism as epistemically circular, favoring theism's grounding of rational minds in a divine intellect.

Epistemological and Ontological Considerations

Atheism, epistemologically, maintains that belief in deities requires positive commensurate with the claim's extraordinary nature, positioning non-belief as the rational default absent such substantiation. This evidentialist stance, articulated by philosophers such as in his 1952 analogy of the celestial teapot—which posits that an unprovable orbiting teapot cannot be dismissed without —places the burden of proof on theists making affirmative existential claims rather than on atheists merely withholding assent. Empirical observation and scientific methodology further underpin this view, as atheism rejects faith-based epistemologies that prioritize or intuition over verifiable data, insisting that extraordinary assertions demand extraordinary as per Carl Sagan's . Critics from theistic perspectives argue this shifts the burden unfairly, but atheists counter that universal negative claims (e.g., "no gods exist") are not asserted in weak variants, which epistemically align with skepticism toward untestable hypotheses. Ontologically, atheism commits to naturalism, asserting that reality comprises only natural entities and processes governed by impersonal laws, without recourse to agents or realms. This , as delineated in , holds that once sufficient empirical investigation covers particular phenomena and general principles, no residual need for divine explanation persists, rendering ontologically superfluous. , a stricter variant, posits that all existent phenomena reduce to physical states and interactions, excluding immaterial or transcendent beings, which aligns with atheism's rejection of dualistic ontologies. Such a framework implies in the natural world, where events trace to prior natural antecedents without gaps for interventionist deities, supported by the success of naturalistic explanations in fields like cosmology and —e.g., the model and evolutionary theory accounting for origins without invoking creation ex nihilo. These epistemological and ontological commitments intersect in debates over justification: atheists contend that naturalism's coherence with observed reality provides epistemic warrant for rejecting theistic posits, whereas theists invoke ontological arguments (e.g., Anselm's) to claim God's necessary existence as foundational to being itself. However, atheists critique such a priori reasoning as question-begging, favoring inductive methods that prioritize experiential data over modal logic detached from empirical anchors. This stance underscores atheism's alignment with methodological naturalism in science, where supernatural hypotheses are not merely unproven but systematically eliminable due to their non-falsifiability and lack of explanatory power beyond natural alternatives.

Historical Development

Ancient and Classical Periods

In ancient India, the Nasadiya Sukta, known as the Hymn of Creation from the Rigveda (c. 1500–1200 BCE during the Vedic period), states there was neither existence (sat) nor non-existence (asat), no space or sky, questioning what covered it or sheltered the deep cosmic waters. It culminates in agnosticism: "even gods came later, so who knows whence creation arose? The overseer in highest heaven might know—or perhaps not." This reflects early Indian cosmology’s emphasis on mystery over dogmatic certainty. In ancient , during the Post-Vedic period, the (or Lokayata) school emerged around 600 BCE as one of the earliest documented materialist philosophies explicitly rejecting the existence of gods, the soul, and an , relying instead on direct as the sole valid source of and advocating hedonistic grounded in sensory pleasure. This heterodox tradition critiqued Vedic rituals and claims, positing that arises from the body like intoxication from fermented ingredients, with no persistence beyond physical death. Though primary texts are lost, references in later works like the Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha indicate Charvaka's influence persisted into the medieval period, though it faced marginalization by orthodox Brahmanical schools. In ancient Greece, explicit denial of gods was rare and often led to accusations of impiety, as seen in the trial and exile of Anaxagoras in 450 BCE for claiming the sun was a hot rock rather than a deity. Diagoras of Melos, active in the late 5th century BCE, earned the epithet "the Atheist" for mocking religious mysteries and asserting gods played no role in human affairs, prompting his flight from Athens amid persecution. Protagoras (c. 490–420 BCE) expressed agnostic skepticism by stating, "As to the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be," leading to the burning of his books in Athens. Materialist atomists like Democritus (c. 460–370 BCE) explained the universe through indivisible particles in void, without divine intervention, though he avoided direct confrontation with popular religion. Epicurus (341–270 BCE) founded a philosophy that, while positing distant, anthropomorphic gods living in bliss without interfering in the world, effectively rendered them irrelevant to human ethics and physics, prioritizing natural explanations over providence or fear of afterlife punishment. His follower Theodorus of Cyrene (c. 340–250 BCE) openly denied gods' existence, reportedly calling Plato's ideal forms "empty words" and facing exile. These ideas influenced Hellenistic skepticism, but outright atheism remained marginal, often conflated with immorality or threats to civic order in city-states reliant on religious cults for social cohesion. During the classical Roman period, Epicureanism spread via Lucretius (c. 99–55 BCE), whose poem De Rerum Natura expounded atomism, rejected divine creation or intervention, and critiqued "superstitious" fears of gods as sources of human misery, arguing the universe arose from random atomic swerves rather than purposeful design. Lucretius aimed to liberate minds from religion's "foul" grip, portraying it as a tool for tyranny, though he nominally affirmed non-interventionist gods to evade charges of impiety. Roman authorities, like those under Cicero's critiques, viewed such views as subversive, associating them with Epicurean withdrawal from public life and traditional piety. Overall, ancient and classical atheism manifested more as philosophical materialism and skepticism than organized disbelief, constrained by legal penalties for asebeia (impiety) in Greece and analogous Roman sacrilege laws.

Medieval to Enlightenment Era

In medieval , spanning roughly from the 5th to the , overt atheism was exceedingly rare due to the hegemonic influence of and the mechanisms of and secular authority that equated denial of God with . The Catholic Church's doctrinal uniformity, enforced through councils like the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 which mandated annual confession and intensified anti-heresy measures, left little room for public toward divine existence. Accusations of atheism often encompassed broader unbelief or moral deviance rather than strict philosophical rejection of , with inquisitorial trials targeting perceived threats to ; for instance, the establishment of the Papal in 1231 formalized persecution of such views, resulting in executions for heresy that could include atheistic leanings. While no systematically articulated atheistic treatises survive from this era, raw incredulity and doubt appeared sporadically in private or literary contexts, as noted by historians who argue that intuitive unbelief persisted despite the absence of organized atheism. Parallel developments occurred in the Islamic world during the (8th to 13th centuries), where freethinkers occasionally challenged prophetic authority and divine intervention, though explicit atheism remained marginal and often veiled. Figures like Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi (854–925 CE), a physician and philosopher, critiqued religious prophets as impediments to reason and questioned miracles, implying naturalistic explanations over ones, which some interpret as proto-atheistic. Similarly, (827–911 CE) rejected Islamic orthodoxy in works like The Book of the Self-Contradictions of the Qur'an, mocking revelation and advocating skepticism toward revealed religions, though his views were condemned and texts largely lost. These expressions of doubt coexisted with a predominantly theistic scholarly environment, where rational inquiry flourished under caliphal patronage but rarely extended to outright god-denial, constrained by theological orthodoxy from thinkers like (1058–1111 CE) who defended faith against philosophical excess. The transition to the and saw a revival of classical texts, fostering and , but explicit atheism emerged prominently during the Enlightenment (17th–18th centuries) amid empirical science and critiques of religious authority. (1711–1776), in his published posthumously in 1779, systematically undermined teleological arguments for God's existence by highlighting empirical inconsistencies in design analogies, earning accusations of atheism despite his agnostic leanings. (1713–1784), editor of the (1751–1772), evolved from to , asserting in clandestine works that nature operates without divine purpose, influencing radical Enlightenment circles. The most unequivocal atheistic manifesto of the era came from (1723–1789), whose The System of Nature (1770) declared the universe self-sustaining through mechanical laws, rejecting any supernatural deity as superfluous and attributing religious belief to fear and ignorance. This work, circulated in underground networks, marked a shift toward public, philosophically grounded atheism, challenging the deistic compromises of figures like (1694–1778), who critiqued but affirmed a distant creator. Such ideas gained traction amid events like the (1789), where fueled perceptions of atheism as a threat to social order, prompting backlash including the 1793 de-Christianization campaign's excesses. Despite persecution risks, Enlightenment atheism laid groundwork for secular reasoning by prioritizing observable over , though it represented a minority view amid prevailing .

Modern Period and Enlightenment Thinkers

The modern period, spanning the 17th and 18th centuries, saw the gradual emergence of atheistic thought amid the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment emphasis on empirical reason and skepticism toward ecclesiastical authority. Advances in natural philosophy, such as Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica published in 1687, promoted a mechanistic universe governed by discoverable laws, challenging providential interpretations of nature prevalent in medieval theology. However, explicit avowal of atheism remained rare and perilous, often resulting in censorship, imprisonment, or social ostracism, as religious orthodoxy dominated European institutions. David Hume (1711–1776), a Scottish philosopher, advanced through works like (published posthumously in 1779), critiquing teleological arguments for God's existence by highlighting empirical inadequacies in inferring design from observed order. Hume's mitigated questioned and without unequivocally denying a divine being, though contemporaries frequently accused him of atheism for undermining foundational theistic proofs. His approach exemplified a cautious erosion of dogmatic belief, prioritizing probabilistic reasoning over absolute certainties in metaphysics. Denis Diderot (1713–1784), French philosopher and co-editor of the Encyclopédie (1751–1772), transitioned from deism to materialism and atheism, articulating in Philosophical Thoughts (1746) that skepticism toward religious claims fosters truth-seeking. Imprisoned for three months in Vincennes for this work's perceived irreligion, Diderot later advocated sensory experience as the basis of knowledge, rejecting supernatural explanations in favor of naturalistic determinism. His contributions to the Encyclopédie subtly disseminated antireligious ideas, defining atheism as denial of God's existence while promoting secular ethics grounded in human utility. Paul-Henri Thiry, (1723–1789), represented the radical fringe with The System of Nature (1770), the first major treatise openly espousing atheism and materialist determinism, asserting that all phenomena arise from matter in motion without need for divine intervention. argued human fears and ignorance birthed gods to explain natural events, advocating a self-sustaining through immutable laws, which influenced clandestine circles but provoked widespread condemnation as subversive. Unlike deists like , who affirmed a distant creator while scorning atheism for potentially eroding moral order, d'Holbach's work marked a pivotal shift toward systematic rejection of in philosophical . These thinkers operated within a broader Enlightenment context where predominated among reformers, viewing atheism as an extreme risking societal , yet their critiques laid groundwork for later by prioritizing evidence over faith. Empirical challenges to religious narratives, coupled with growing debates, fostered environments where atheistic ideas circulated privately, though public endorsement remained exceptional until the .

20th Century State Atheism and Ideologies

In the 20th century, state atheism emerged as a core policy in several Marxist-Leninist regimes, where governments actively promoted atheistic materialism as essential to constructing a classless society, viewing religion as a tool of bourgeois oppression that perpetuated superstition and hindered proletarian consciousness. This approach stemmed from Karl Marx's characterization of religion as the "opium of the people," which later Bolshevik leaders interpreted as necessitating the eradication of religious institutions to foster a rational, scientific worldview aligned with dialectical materialism. Regimes in the Soviet Union, China, and Albania implemented coercive measures, including propaganda, legal restrictions, and violent suppression, to enforce atheism, often conflating it with loyalty to the party and state. The Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin exemplified aggressive state atheism from the 1920s onward, with the Bolsheviks establishing the League of Militant Atheists in 1925 to organize anti-religious campaigns targeting Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other faiths. At its height in the early 1930s, the League claimed 5.5 million members and coordinated efforts like the "Godless Five-Year Plan" launched in 1928, which involved closing churches, confiscating religious property, and promoting atheistic education through museums, lectures, and publications. Persecution intensified during Stalin's purges in the late 1930s, resulting in the execution or imprisonment of tens of thousands of clergy and believers, alongside the near-total destruction of organized religious structures by World War II. These policies reduced active Orthodox churches from approximately 29,000 in the late 1920s to under 500 by 1941, reflecting a deliberate strategy to replace spiritual authority with state ideology. In the , Mao Zedong's regime advanced through the from 1966 to 1976, framing as part of the "Four Olds"—old ideas, culture, customs, and habits—that obstructed revolutionary progress. destroyed thousands of temples, mosques, and churches, while persecuting monks, imams, and other religious figures, often subjecting them to public humiliation, forced labor, or execution to enforce Maoist . This campaign aligned with the Chinese Communist Party's atheistic constitution, which prohibited supernatural beliefs, though enforcement varied regionally and allowed limited underground persistence. Albania under Enver Hoxha declared itself the world's first explicitly atheist state in 1967, embedding state atheism in its constitution by 1976 and banning all religious practices, institutions, and symbols under penalty of imprisonment or death. Hoxha's regime demolished over 2,000 religious sites, including mosques and churches, and executed or interned thousands of clergy, aiming to root out what it deemed feudal remnants incompatible with Stalinist socialism. Similar patterns occurred in Eastern Bloc countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia, where communist governments curtailed religious freedoms through surveillance and property seizures, though resistance from Catholic and Protestant communities limited total eradication. These efforts, while ideologically driven by atheistic materialism, often served to consolidate power by eliminating rival loyalties, with empirical outcomes showing widespread noncompliance and underground religiosity persisting despite repression. In the early 21st century, the New Atheism movement gained prominence through public intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, who advocated aggressive critique of religion following events like the September 11 attacks. Publications such as Dawkins's The God Delusion (2006) and Harris's The End of Faith (2004) popularized explicit atheism, contributing to heightened visibility and debate. However, by the 2010s, the movement fragmented due to internal disagreements on politics, ethics, and strategy, with figures like Harris facing criticism for views on topics beyond religion, leading to its perceived decline as a cohesive force by the early 2020s. Global surveys indicate a rise in self-identified atheists alongside broader unaffiliated ("nones") populations. Gallup International data show convinced atheists increasing from 6% of respondents in to 11% in 2024, while those identifying as religious fell from 68% to 56%, with unaffiliated rising from 21% to 28%. Pew Research estimates the global unaffiliated at 24.2% in 2020, up from prior decades, though explicit atheism remains a subset, with many nones retaining spiritual beliefs—45% of U.S. nones in 2023 reported belief in or a . Regional variations persist: atheism prevalence exceeds 70% in countries like and Czechia per 2020 estimates, driven by state policies and historical , while growth is slower in low-income nations at around 3%. In the United States, the unaffiliated share rose from 16% in 2007 to 29% by 2021, stabilizing around 29-30% through 2024 as Christian identification decline slowed. Explicit atheists comprise about 4% of U.S. adults per Pew's 2023 survey, with agnostics at 5%, reflecting steady rather than surging explicit disbelief. This plateau correlates with demographic factors, including lower fertility among nones and generational stabilization among those born after 2000, where unaffiliation hovers at 43%. Broader shifts include rising secular moral frameworks and online communities, though militant activism has waned, with atheism increasingly integrated into cultural norms rather than oppositional movements.

Demographics and Global Distribution

Globally, self-identified atheists constitute approximately 10% of the world's population according to the Gallup International survey conducted in 2024, marking an increase from 6% in 2005 and 4% in 2012. This figure reflects respondents who describe themselves as "convinced atheists," though survey responses are influenced by cultural norms and social pressures, with underreporting likely in religiously dominant societies where expressing atheism carries risks. In absolute terms, this equates to roughly 800 million individuals, with the largest concentrations in East Asia, particularly China, where up to 91% of the population is reported as atheist in some polls, often tied to state-sanctioned secularism rather than personal philosophical conviction. The broader category of religiously unaffiliated individuals—which encompasses atheists, agnostics, and those identifying as "nothing in particular"—grew from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 1.9 billion in 2020, representing about 24% of the global population in the latter year, though many in this group retain spiritual or beliefs. Despite absolute growth, projections indicate a relative decline in the unaffiliated share to 13% by 2050, driven by higher fertility rates among religious populations (averaging 2.5 children per woman versus 1.6 for the unaffiliated) and aging demographics in secular regions. This demographic shift underscores a causal link between and , contributing to the projected stabilization or reversal of atheism's rise in high-income, low-fertility societies. Recent trends from 2023 to 2025 show continued increases in atheist self-identification in surveys, with Gallup reporting 11% globally in preliminary 2025 data, particularly in urbanizing areas of and . However, in the United States, atheists remain at 4% of adults as of 2023, stable from prior years despite the religiously unaffiliated reaching 28%. In , countries like and the exhibit atheist rates exceeding 75%, while and the show near-zero levels, highlighting regional disparities tied to and historical . These patterns suggest that while short-term survey trends indicate growth in explicit atheism, long-term global prevalence may plateau due to differential and persistent cultural adherence to in high-growth regions.

Regional Variations

Atheism exhibits pronounced regional differences, correlating with historical , , and cultural factors. and host the highest concentrations, while and the Islamic world feature the lowest rates, often below 1% for explicit atheism. Globally, about 10% of people identified as atheists in 2024 surveys, up from prior decades, though unaffiliated populations—encompassing atheists, agnostics, and those with no particular —totaled 1.9 billion or roughly 24% of the in 2020. In Europe, irreligion dominates, particularly in post-communist Eastern Europe and secular Western states. Czechia leads with an estimated 70% atheists in 2020, followed by Sweden at 68% and Estonia at 64%; Northern and Western Europe average 20-50% non-religious, driven by Enlightenment legacies and welfare state correlations reducing religiosity dependence. The UK surpassed theists with more atheists by 2024, per Queen's University research analyzing global trends. Southern Europe lags, with Italy and Poland at under 20% atheists amid stronger Catholic adherence. East Asia shows elevated atheism due to Confucian legacies emphasizing over and state policies. reports 79% atheists in 2020 estimates, comprising the bulk of global unaffiliated at 78% of the 1.9 billion in . and follow with 19-60% non-religious, where Shinto-Buddhist syncretism often lacks personal gods, blurring strict atheism lines. South and Southeast Asia contrast sharply, with and under 5% atheists amid Hindu-Muslim majorities. North America experiences rising atheism, though from lower bases than . The U.S. has 5% explicit atheists and 29% unaffiliated as of 2023-24, with growth fastest among youth; reaches 19% atheists. Latin America sees modest increases, e.g., 22% in , but remains predominantly Christian at over 80% affiliation. Sub-Saharan Africa maintains near-universal religiosity, with atheism under 1% in nations like and , where cohort data show no decline and even reversals in . The Middle East and North Africa exhibit similarly low rates, often 0-2%, enforced by Islamic legal frameworks penalizing ; reports 23% in some estimates, potentially understated due to risks.

Correlations with Education, Wealth, and Culture

Atheism exhibits a positive correlation with higher levels of formal education in numerous studies, particularly in Western contexts. In the United States, Pew Research Center analysis from 2017 revealed that college graduates are far less likely than those with high school education or less to affirm that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives, with only 23% of postgraduates holding this view compared to 49% of those without a high school diploma. A 2013 meta-analysis encompassing 63 studies across 87 countries identified a significant negative association between intelligence—often proxied by educational attainment—and religiosity, with a stronger effect size (r = -0.24) among college students than the general population (r = -0.18). Globally, Pew data from 2025 indicates that adults with postsecondary education are more prone to religious unaffiliation, though this pattern varies by region and does not uniformly translate to explicit atheism. Regarding wealth and socioeconomic status, self-identified atheists and agnostics in the U.S. disproportionately hail from higher-income brackets. According to Pew's 2025 demographic profile, 48% of atheists and 43% of agnostics report household incomes exceeding $100,000 annually, surpassing rates among most religious groups except Hindus and mainline Protestants. This aligns with earlier Pew findings from 2016, where atheists and agnostics ranked among the highest-income religious categories, with median household incomes above the national average. On a global scale, irreligion correlates with economic prosperity: Gallup's 2010 analysis of 114 countries showed religiosity peaking in nations with GDP per capita below $5,000, while a 2015 Pew study confirmed that wealthier countries generally exhibit lower religiosity levels, though the U.S. deviates as an affluent yet relatively religious outlier. Culturally, atheism thrives in environments characterized by secular governance, scientific emphasis, and individualistic values, often in urbanized, post-industrial societies. It is markedly higher in Northern and Western Europe—such as (up to 85% irreligious per some estimates) and the —where cultural norms prioritize rational inquiry over explanations. Cross-national surveys link nonbelief to exposure to secular media and education systems that challenge traditional doctrines, with atheists more prevalent among white, male demographics in high-trust, low-corruption societies. In contrast, collectivist or traditional cultures in and the show near-total , underscoring atheism's affinity for cosmopolitan, Enlightenment-influenced milieus. These patterns persist even as some secular societies retain latent spiritual intuitions among nonbelievers.

Atheism and Ethics

Secular Moral Frameworks

Secular moral frameworks derive ethical principles from human reason, , and social cooperation rather than divine commands or sanctions. These systems, often embraced by atheists, seek to establish norms for behavior through observable consequences, rational deliberation, and innate human capacities such as and reciprocity. Proponents contend that emerges from evolutionary adaptations promoting group survival, as evidenced by patterns in and of free-riders in small-scale societies dating back to eras. Many atheists regard justice and morals as human constructs—social rules evolved for harmony, comparable to traffic laws—rather than divine imperatives; nature exhibits no inherent justice, as predators kill without retribution, underscoring that morality arises from human evolutionary and social processes. One prominent framework is , which emphasizes ethical conduct grounded in compassion, critical inquiry, and the fulfillment of human potential without reliance on religious authority. The Humanist Manifesto I, published in 1933 by a group of intellectuals including , asserts that "ethics is the product of human social experience and depends solely upon the use of reason," rejecting supernatural origins for moral values. , issued in 1973, reinforces this by declaring that "moral principles do not depend upon, though they at times may coincide with, religious or deity-oriented systems," instead prioritizing individual freedom and democratic participation to resolve ethical conflicts. Organizations like the continue to advocate this approach, linking it to evidence-based policies on issues such as reproductive rights and . Utilitarianism represents another key secular system, focusing on maximizing overall well-being as the criterion for right action. Originating with Jeremy Bentham's 1789 treatise An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, it proposes that actions are morally right if they produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the affected parties, calculated through impartial assessment of consequences. John Stuart Mill refined this in his 1863 essay Utilitarianism, distinguishing higher intellectual pleasures from mere sensory ones and arguing that utility aligns with virtues like justice, as empirical observation shows societies thriving under rules that prevent harm. Modern variants, such as preference utilitarianism, incorporate psychological data on human satisfaction, with philosophers like Peter Singer applying it to global issues like animal welfare and poverty alleviation based on quantifiable impacts. Social contract theory provides a third foundation, positing that moral obligations arise from hypothetical agreements among rational agents to ensure mutual benefit and security. Thomas Hobbes outlined this in his 1651 Leviathan, describing a state of nature where self-interest leads to conflict, resolvable only through consent to a sovereign enforcing rules against aggression, though his framework operates on secular premises of human psychology rather than theology. Contemporary secular adaptations, such as John Rawls's 1971 A Theory of Justice, employ a "veil of ignorance" thought experiment where individuals design principles blind to their own position, yielding rules favoring liberty and equitable distribution, supported by game-theoretic models demonstrating cooperation's stability in iterated prisoner's dilemmas. This approach underpins atheist defenses of rights, as it derives authority from reciprocal enforcement rather than transcendent decree. Virtue ethics, secularized from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (circa 350 BCE), prioritizes the cultivation of character traits like courage and temperance to achieve eudaimonia, or human flourishing, through habitual practice informed by practical wisdom. In modern secular contexts, it integrates psychological research on habit formation and resilience, with ethicists arguing that virtues evolve as adaptive traits for social cohesion, as seen in longitudinal studies linking traits like honesty to long-term societal trust and economic productivity. Unlike rule-based systems, it emphasizes internal motivation over external sanctions, appealing to atheists who view moral development as a natural outcome of education and environment. These frameworks often intersect; for instance, evolutionary ethics draws on Darwin's 1871 The Descent of Man to explain moral instincts as byproducts of natural selection favoring kin altruism and reciprocity, providing a biological basis testable via behavioral economics experiments showing universal aversion to inequity. While diverse, they collectively reject moral relativism by anchoring norms in verifiable human needs and consequences, though debates persist on their capacity to enforce absolute prohibitions without metaphysical grounding.

Moral Relativism and Nihilism Critiques

Critics of atheism maintain that rejecting a divine foundation for morality results in relativism, where ethical truths become contingent on individual or cultural preferences rather than absolute standards grounded in a transcendent order. Without an objective moral lawgiver, proponents argue, there can be no binding "oughts" independent of human invention, leading to the erosion of universal prohibitions against actions like murder or injustice. This view posits that atheistic moral systems, often derived from evolutionary adaptations or utilitarian calculations, describe what is done but cannot prescribe what ought to be done, rendering them vulnerable to subjective reinterpretation. Friedrich Nietzsche exemplified this critique by declaring "God is dead" in The Gay Science (1882), interpreting the decline of religious belief as precipitating nihilism—a devaluation of all values, where existence lacks inherent purpose or meaning once the Christian framework underpinning Western morality disintegrates. Nietzsche warned that this "death" exposes humanity to a profound crisis, as traditional virtues, once justified by divine command, become arbitrary without their metaphysical anchor, potentially fostering despair or the will to power as substitutes. Fyodor Dostoevsky articulated a related concern in The Brothers Karamazov (1880), through Ivan Karamazov's assertion that if God does not exist, "everything is permitted," suggesting atheism unleashes moral anarchy by severing ethics from eternal accountability. This literary exploration critiques the rationalist atheism of the 19th century, portraying it as conducive to nihilistic rationalizations of evil, such as utilitarianism that justifies atrocities for perceived greater goods. Dostoevsky's narrative implies that human conscience, while resilient, ultimately relies on theistic presuppositions for coherence, without which rational self-interest devolves into permissive relativism. Modern philosophers like extend these arguments, contending that atheism's naturalistic worldview cannot sustain , as values reduce to non-binding preferences in a valueless , echoing Nietzschean despite secular attempts at . Empirical observations of moral disagreement across cultures are cited to bolster claims, though critics note that atheists often retain deontological intuitions inconsistent with their , borrowing from theistic heritage without acknowledgment. This tension, they argue, underscores atheism's instability, potentially permitting ethical frameworks that prioritize survival or pleasure over intrinsic human dignity.

Empirical Outcomes in Atheist Ethics

Atheist individuals exhibit moral reasoning comparable to religious believers in many experimental settings, with both groups prioritizing harm avoidance and fairness, though atheists tend to place less emphasis on values like loyalty, authority, and sanctity. For instance, a 2021 study of over 4,000 participants across 10 countries found that atheists and theists shared core prosocial intuitions but diverged on binding moral foundations, where atheists scored lower on endorsement of deference to tradition or ingroup cohesion. These differences do not necessarily translate to inferior ethical conduct; meta-analyses indicate no systematic gap in capacity for moral decision-making between theists and nontheists. In terms of , religious individuals donate more to charity and volunteer at higher rates than atheists. Data from the 2007 U.S. Survey of the Public's Participation in showed religiously affiliated Americans averaging $1,590 in annual charitable contributions, compared to lower amounts among the nonreligious, with believers 25 percentage points more likely to donate money (91% vs. 66%) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time. A 2024 study across the U.S., , , and confirmed that and exhibited greater generosity toward coreligionists, while atheists gave less overall, though patterns shifted in anonymous dictator games where recipient beliefs were unknown. Societal-level outcomes in highly secular nations, such as those in Northern Europe, show lower homicide and violent crime rates compared to more religious countries, with 2022 global data indicating murder rates under 1 per 100,000 in secular states like Norway and Sweden versus over 20 in religious-majority nations like El Salvador or Jamaica. However, these correlations are confounded by factors like GDP per capita and governance quality; a 1996 analysis of 13 industrial countries found more religious societies had lower property crime rates, suggesting religion's role in deterring theft via norms of sanctity. Declines in religiosity predicted homicide increases only in low-IQ nations, implying cultural and cognitive mediators beyond atheism itself. Atheism correlates with elevated suicide risk in multiple datasets. A 2004 study of 3,713 depressed inpatients found religious affiliation halved the odds of suicide attempts (odds ratio 0.21 after controls), with effects persisting across Christian, Muslim, and other faiths. Systematic reviews confirm religious service attendance reduces attempts by fostering social support and moral objections to self-harm, with irreligion emerging as a modest risk factor in U.S. and Canadian cohorts. Similarly, actively religious people report higher happiness; a 2019 Pew analysis of 27 countries showed frequent worshippers 7-10 percentage points more likely to describe themselves as "very happy" than inactives or nonbelievers, linked to community ties rather than doctrine alone. These patterns hold after adjusting for income and education, though secular welfare systems in atheist-heavy societies mitigate some vulnerabilities.

Societal Impacts and Comparisons

Contributions to Science and Rationalism

Atheistic perspectives have contributed to science by endorsing methodological naturalism, which posits that natural phenomena can be explained through empirical observation and testable theories without invoking supernatural agents. This approach aligns with the core tenets of the scientific method, emphasizing falsifiability and evidence over faith-based assertions. Historical analyses indicate that the rejection of religious dogma facilitated scientific progress, particularly when empirical findings contradicted scriptural interpretations, as seen in the advancement of heliocentrism and evolutionary biology despite institutional opposition from religious authorities. Prominent atheist scientists have driven key discoveries across disciplines. In physics, atheists including Paul Dirac, who formulated the Dirac equation in 1928 predicting antimatter, Richard Feynman, co-developer of quantum electrodynamics in the 1940s, and Steven Weinberg, who contributed to the electroweak theory unifying weak and electromagnetic forces in 1967–1979, exemplified rigorous empirical inquiry unbound by theological constraints. Similarly, in biology, atheists like Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA's double helix structure in 1953, advanced molecular understandings of life without reliance on creationist narratives. Surveys of scientific elites underscore atheism's prevalence in fostering rational inquiry. A 2013 study of U.K. Royal Society Fellows, elected for distinguished contributions to science, found that 78% expressed strong opposition to belief in a personal god, with only 3.3% affirming such belief, correlating with an environment prioritizing evidence over revelation. This demographic skew suggests that atheistic skepticism of unverified claims supports the critical evaluation essential to scientific advancement. In , atheism reinforces the primacy of reason and logic, rejecting propositions unsubstantiated by experience or deduction. Rationalist atheism, as articulated in philosophical discourse, holds that truths derivable from and reason supersede those from religious texts, promoting and the testing of ideas against reality. This framework has underpinned secular defenses of scientific autonomy, countering attempts to subordinate inquiry to doctrinal .

Associations with Regimes and Human Rights Abuses

In the 20th century, several communist regimes explicitly endorsed state atheism as integral to their materialist ideologies, correlating with policies of religious suppression and broader human rights violations that resulted in tens of millions of deaths. These governments viewed religion as a counter-revolutionary force incompatible with dialectical materialism, leading to targeted campaigns against believers alongside mass purges, forced labor, and engineered famines. The Black Book of Communism estimates a total death toll exceeding 94 million across such regimes, with religious persecution often serving as a mechanism to consolidate power by eliminating alternative sources of authority and moral frameworks. The Soviet Union exemplified this pattern after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, when leaders like Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin institutionalized atheism to eradicate "opium of the people." The League of Militant Atheists, established in 1925 and reaching 5.5 million members by the early 1930s, orchestrated propaganda drives, church demolitions, and show trials that decimated religious institutions; by 1939, over 90% of Orthodox churches had been closed, and tens of thousands of clergy faced execution or imprisonment in the Gulag system. This contributed to an estimated 20 million deaths under Soviet rule from 1917 to 1953, including targeted killings of believers deemed threats to the regime's monopoly on truth and loyalty. Scholarly estimates suggest that half of the 60 million Soviet citizens killed or imprisoned in this period were Christians, highlighting religion's role as a focal point for repression amid broader totalitarian controls. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, state atheism fueled antireligious drives from 1949 onward, including the destruction of temples during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) and the persecution of groups like Christians and Falun Gong practitioners. Approximately 500,000 Christians perished due to faith-related targeting, while the regime's policies overall accounted for 65–77 million deaths through famine, purges, and labor camps. Maoist ideology, rooted in atheistic Marxism, framed religion as feudal superstition obstructing proletarian revolution, enabling unchecked abuses justified by class struggle rather than divine accountability. Cambodia's Khmer Rouge regime (1975–1979), led by Pol Pot and inspired by Maoist communism, pursued an atheistic vision of agrarian utopia by "smashing" religious ties, executing nearly all 60,000 Buddhist monks and razing thousands of pagodas to sever spiritual loyalties. This genocide claimed 1.5–3 million lives, or about 25% of the population, through starvation, execution, and forced labor, with religion explicitly targeted as bourgeois contamination. Albania under Enver Hoxha declared itself the world's first atheist state in 1967, constitutionally banning religion in 1976 and demolishing over 2,000 mosques, churches, and religious sites while imprisoning or killing clerics. Hoxha's regime, which persecuted believers as ideological enemies, contributed to thousands of political deaths amid isolationist totalitarianism. North Korea's ongoing Juche ideology enforces state atheism, treating religion as treasonous imperialism; believers face execution, torture, or labor camps, with near-total denial of religious freedom documented in UN reports. Critics attribute these patterns to atheism's removal of transcendent moral constraints, allowing regimes to posit the state as ultimate arbiter, though defenders contend the abuses stemmed from authoritarian communism independent of disbelief in gods. Empirical records confirm, however, that state atheism facilitated the ideological erasure of religious resistance, amplifying the scale of violations in these materialist dictatorships.

Comparative Societal Metrics

Societies with higher proportions of atheists or the non-religious tend to exhibit superior performance on metrics of economic prosperity and public safety. For instance, countries like Sweden (78% atheists or non-religious), the Czech Republic (75%), and Japan (86%) consistently rank among the wealthiest, with GDP per capita figures exceeding $40,000 in 2023, compared to highly religious nations such as Nigeria (over 95% affiliated with religion) and Indonesia (84%), where per capita GDP remains below $6,000. This pattern aligns with longitudinal analyses indicating that secularization precedes economic growth, with each increment in secularism correlating to GDP increases of up to $5,000 per capita over three decades, potentially due to reduced resource allocation toward religious institutions and enhanced focus on education and innovation. Violent crime rates, particularly homicides, are markedly lower in predominantly secular societies. Japan's homicide rate stands at 0.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, Sweden's at approximately 1.1, and the Czech Republic's at 0.6, versus Nigeria's estimated 9-34 per 100,000 amid high religiosity. Cross-national data further substantiates that secular nations and U.S. states experience lower murder and violent crime incidence, challenging claims that religiosity inherently suppresses criminality, as property crime correlations favor religious societies but violent offenses do not. Confounders such as poverty and governance quality explain much variance, yet secularism's association with social stability persists even after controlling for wealth. Happiness and life satisfaction indices reveal a nuanced picture, with secular countries dominating top rankings in the World Happiness Report—Finland, Denmark, and Sweden score above 7.4 out of 10—while highly religious developing nations like Nigeria (4.5) and Afghanistan lag below 3. At the individual level, actively religious persons report higher happiness in 78% of global studies, yet aggregate societal outcomes favor secular contexts, suggesting institutional secularism fosters broader well-being through welfare systems and equality rather than personal faith. Suicide rates present a counterpoint, often elevated in secular societies: Japan's rate exceeds 14 per 100,000, Sweden's 11-12, compared to lower figures in religious strongholds like Muslim-majority countries (under 5 in many cases), though underreporting in developing regions complicates direct comparisons. Empirical reviews indicate religiosity buffers suicidality via community ties and prohibitions, with irreligion emerging as a risk factor in some cohorts, potentially linked to existential concerns absent in faith-based frameworks.
MetricHigh Atheism Example (e.g., , )High Religiosity Example (e.g., , )
GDP per Capita (2023)$40,000–$60,000$2,000–$5,000
Rate (per 100k)0.2–1.10.4–34
Score (2023)6.0–7.54.0–5.5
Rate (per 100k)10–15<5–10
These disparities underscore correlations rather than strict causation, as secularism often co-occurs with modernization, though data refute narratives of societal decay under atheism.

Controversies and Criticisms

New Atheism and Its Limitations

New Atheism emerged in the early 2000s as a militant form of atheism advocating aggressive criticism of religion, particularly in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks and perceived threats from religious extremism. Key figures included Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion (2006), Sam Harris with The End of Faith (2004), Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great (2007), and Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell (2006), who argued that religious belief is a harmful delusion incompatible with scientific rationality and that theism should be actively opposed rather than tolerated. These works became bestsellers, elevating atheism's visibility and fostering public debates on faith's societal role. Despite its cultural impact, New Atheism faced limitations in philosophical depth and practical efficacy. Critics, including philosophers, noted its failure to engage seriously with sophisticated theological arguments or historical religious texts, often relying on caricatures of faith rather than addressing nuanced positions like those in classical theism. For instance, the movement's scientistic emphasis treated religious questions as purely epistemological, overlooking religion's non-falsifiable roles in providing meaning, community, and moral frameworks, which science alone cannot replicate. John Gray argued that New Atheists projected a secularist worldview onto history, ignoring how religions have adapted and endured beyond literal belief. Empirically, New Atheism did not lead to sustained growth in atheism; U.S. unaffiliated rates peaked around 2010s but stabilized, with recent data showing no dramatic surge in nonbelief despite the movement's peak media presence from 2006-2008. Internal fractures further undermined it, including disagreements over politics, free speech, and gender issues, with figures like Harris and Dawkins facing backlash within progressive circles for defending biological sex differences, alienating potential allies. By the 2020s, the movement waned amid scandals and cultural shifts, failing to offer a cohesive alternative to religion's functions, such as addressing existential voids or fostering ethical systems beyond critique. This left it vulnerable to charges of dogmatism, mirroring the intolerance it condemned in fundamentalism.

Atheism's Role in Totalitarianism

The Soviet Union, under the Marxist-Leninist ideology, adopted state atheism as an official policy from its inception in 1917, viewing religion as an opiate of the masses that perpetuated class exploitation and hindered proletarian revolution. The Bolsheviks established the League of Militant Atheists in 1925, which by 1930 claimed over 3.5 million members and conducted aggressive propaganda campaigns, including the destruction of over 90% of Orthodox churches by the late 1930s and the execution or imprisonment of tens of thousands of clergy during the Great Purge of 1937-1938. This suppression eliminated religious institutions as independent sources of moral authority and social organization, facilitating totalitarian control by centralizing loyalty in the Communist Party and state, which positioned itself as the ultimate arbiter of truth and ethics. In Maoist China, established after the 1949 revolution, the Chinese Communist Party enforced militant atheism rooted in dialectical materialism, launching antireligious campaigns that intensified during the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. Temples, mosques, and churches were systematically destroyed or repurposed, with millions of believers persecuted; for instance, Red Guards targeted Buddhist and Taoist sites, reducing active religious personnel from hundreds of thousands to mere thousands by the campaign's end. Atheism served as a tool to eradicate competing ideologies, enabling the state to demand absolute devotion to Mao's cult of personality and policies like the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962), which contributed to an estimated 45 million deaths from famine and repression. Similar patterns emerged in other 20th-century communist regimes, such as Cambodia under Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge (1975-1979), where state atheism underpinned the Year Zero policy that demolished pagodas and executed monks, resulting in up to 2 million deaths—about 25% of the population—through purges framed as liberation from superstitious feudalism. Across these explicitly atheistic systems, the rejection of transcendent moral frameworks allowed regimes to redefine human value in materialist terms, subordinating individuals to collective goals enforced by terror; estimates compiled in The Black Book of Communism (1997) attribute approximately 94 million deaths to such regimes worldwide, primarily from executions, forced labor, and engineered famines, though critics contest the precision while acknowledging the scale of state-induced mortality. While atheism per se lacks prescriptive doctrines mandating totalitarianism, its instrumental role in these contexts involved dismantling religious counterweights to state power, fostering a vacuum filled by ideological absolutism; historical analyses note that without divine or eternal accountability, leaders like Stalin and Mao could justify mass atrocities as dialectical necessities, unencumbered by notions of inviolable human dignity derived from theistic traditions. This association underscores a causal mechanism wherein state-enforced atheism, paired with utopian collectivism, eroded institutional pluralism, enabling unchecked surveillance and violence; empirical records, including declassified Soviet archives revealing 20 million deaths under Stalin alone, affirm the human cost of such monopolies on worldview.

Debates on Meaning, Purpose, and Human Flourishing

Atheist philosophers and thinkers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, have argued that meaning and purpose must be self-created in an indifferent universe, emphasizing individual authenticity and rebellion against absurdity rather than reliance on divine intent. Secular humanism, as articulated in documents like the Humanist Manifesto III (2003), posits that human flourishing—defined through reason, ethics, science, and empathy—provides sufficient grounds for purpose without supernatural foundations, viewing moral values as emergent from evolutionary biology and social cooperation. Critics from theistic perspectives, including Friedrich Nietzsche's proclamation of the "death of God" leading to nihilism, contend that atheism undermines objective meaning by severing purpose from a transcendent source, reducing human value to contingent biological imperatives and rendering ethics subjective or illusory. William Lane Craig and others argue that without God, human flourishing lacks an ultimate telos, potentially fostering despair as life's significance becomes arbitrary, with Nietzsche himself warning that such a worldview erodes traditional values without viable replacements. Empirical data on human flourishing presents mixed findings, complicating causal claims. Cross-national surveys, such as the World Happiness Report (2023), indicate high life satisfaction in low-religiosity countries like Denmark (7.59/10) and Sweden (7.40/10), attributing this to strong social welfare, trust, and secular ethics rather than faith. However, meta-analyses show religiosity correlates with lower suicide rates; a systematic review of 106 studies found religious involvement reduces suicidality, with attendance at services linked to fewer attempts after controlling for social support (odds ratio 0.37 in some cohorts). Studies on atheists specifically reveal higher rates of depression and suicide ideation in certain populations; for instance, a 2019 analysis of U.S. data associated non-religiosity with elevated suicide risk (hazard ratio 1.6), potentially due to diminished community and existential coping mechanisms, though secular social networks may mitigate this for strongly identified atheists. Critics note that academic research, often from secular-leaning institutions, may underemphasize these correlations by prioritizing cultural confounders over spiritual ones, while atheist responses highlight that flourishing metrics in religious contexts can stem from social cohesion rather than theology per se.

References

  1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheism
  2. https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/State_atheism
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.