Why I am a Strong Atheist

What is a strong atheist?

A strong atheist, as defined in the FAQ "Introduction to Atheism", is someone who does not merely lack belief in god, but believes that god does not exist.

The provisional nature of belief for a thinking person.

I do not have a fanatical unwillingness to consider the possibility of being wrong, nor do I adopt a position of "faith" taken independently of reasoning. My assertion is not dogma.

I would prefer to say "I think that god does not exist" rather than "I believe that god does not exist", in order to emphasize the provisional nature of any conclusions I make about the world. I try to be always open to new evidence that I am wrong on any matter.

As a simple analogy, consider the matter of the dodo; an extinct bird. I think that dodos do not exist; I accept the evidence that they are extinct; I am quite certain on this matter. This is not fanatical dogmatism, but a reasonable conclusion on the basis of evidence -- which will immediately be revised on the unexpected discovery of a small population of living dodos. In the same way, my position with respect to god or anything else is provisional.

The analogy with the dodo is limited. The matter of the existence of god is not anything like so simple. The statement "dodos are extinct" is unambiguous. The statement "god does not exist" is far more vague. My assent to the first statement is uncontroversial; my assent to the second is more problematic; and the remainder of this post attempts to explain why I consider it reasonable.

What is "god" anyway?

If people are to understand my assertion "god does not exist" they must first understand what I mean by "god".

I understand a "god" to be an entity that interacts with the physical world but is to some extent transcendent of the physical laws of the universe to which humans are subject. A "god" is in some sense conscious or intelligent.

This is still fairly nebulous, and so here are illustrative examples:

• A Deist may believe in a "god" who created the universe, but has been uninvolved with it since then. If the Deist makes no further assertions about this creator, then it might be no more than a quantum fluctuation in a meta-universe. It is merely confusing to call such a fluctuation "god", and I am agnostic with respect to such assertions.

• A Deist may go further, and claim that the creator was conscious and that the creation of the universe was a deliberate act. This does involve a "god" according to my understanding, and I think that the universe was not the result of a conscious deliberate act.

• A Taoist believes in a natural flow to the universe; and seeks harmony with this flow. As far as I am aware, a Taoist does not attribute intelligence or consciousness to the Tao, nor is it a distinct "entity", nor is the Tao an emanation or a direction of an identifiable transcendent entity. The Tao is not a god, by my understanding.

• Some people refer to a "soul of the universe" as "god". If they mean that their own approach to the universe has a holistic character, they are not really talking about a "god" entity. If they believe that the universe really has god-like attributes of consciousness or intelligence, then I demur. I think the universe does not have such attributes in any objective sense.

• Animism, and maybe some folk versions of Hinduism, etc, may involve a whole pantheon of supernatural beings which influence the physical world. They may be subject to certain limitations; and perhaps can be controlled by magic; but their limitations are not our limitations, and they are gods by my definition. I think such entities are fictitious.

• The Jewish religion defined the concept of god with which I am most familiar. This god is great transcendent creator, far above and beyond the universe and yet intimately involved with it: one who creates, maintains, and judges the universe. Christianity and Islam and various other off shoots attempt to make this being more accessible. I was once a Christian, but now I think god does not exist.

How can you be so sure gods don't exist?

This finally is the substance of my article. It is not presented as an argument to convince other people; I do not seek to persuade others to my point of view, but only to explain it for those who are interested in the phenomenon of strong atheism. I therefore list some observations which I personally find convincing.

Our "spiritual" qualities emerge from our physical bodies.

The remarkable book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat", by Oliver Sacks, shows some fascinating examples of how physical diseases can play havoc with our usual sense of identity. A major head wound may completely transform a person's character. A disease may cause someone to lose all sense of personal continuity. Drugs and other physical chemicals can affect any aspect of your person which could be called "spiritual".

There is no evidence for personal identity which is not dependent on and derived from the physical body: and ample evidence that all aspects of our person which might be called "spiritual" are intimately linked with our physical body. I conclude that personality and consciousness and intelligence are emergent phenomena.

(This does not belittle personality and consciousness, nor does it imply they are well understood. Consciousness, intelligence and personality are far from understood; the same can be said for our physical bodies.)

This alone is not evidence against God. Christian and Jewish theologians whom I respect have made the same point: the concept of a soul which exists apart from the body is essentially pagan; the Jewish bible describes God as creating a physical body, and then giving it life.

However, the evidence does suggest that personality requires a physical frame. The Christian resurrection stories describe Jesus as having a new body appropriate to his resurrected state; so also a God with personality and will should be expected to have some bodily frame capable of exhibiting personality and will.

On this basis I reject any notion of God as "essential" intelligence or will or personality; and physics gives good reason for supposing that there is no other kind of "stuff" from which the divine entity might be composed.

We are not designed.

Although I frequently say that the theory of evolution does not formally disprove god, I would also add that the theory of evolution has removed perhaps the best reason for supposing that a god exists. The best explanation for our present bodily form suggests that this form is not the consequence of deliberate decision, but the result of unconscious adaptation and interaction between a population of physical beings and their environment.

Occam's razor.

Occam's razor is frequently misunderstood. It is not simply the requirement that we pick the so-called "simplest" explanation for something. It is the requirement that one does not hypothesize redundant entities.

The processes and entities hypothesized and explored by scientists are not atheistic -- they are used by theists and atheists alike to understand the way the world works. These processes and entities do not "replace" God; because adding God to ones world view does not mean one can discard gravity, or distant galaxies, or geology, or mental disease, or whatever. These other things are still needed to explain and understand the universe.

The redundant entity in explaining the observed universe is God.

The incoherence of other rationales for God's existence.

For example, it is sometimes proposed that God is the source of moral authority. This immediately sets up a conundrum: is something good just because God wills it? Could God have decreed otherwise? How would we tell?

I am not well read in philosophy; and perhaps shows my own naivete that I am dismissive of the writings of various thoughtful theists who have more abstract understandings of the word God. I suspect that there are a number of Christian theologians who would be strong atheists as I understand the term and as explained above.

Summing up.

I am quite certain of the truth of the following proposition:

"God does not exist"

All my beliefs are provisional, and have degrees of confidence associated with them. I believe God does not exist with about the same degree of certainty that I believe dodos are extinct.

I am not trying to convince others, but only to explain myself. Some may feel that the lack of formal conclusive proofs make my conclusions illogical. That's fine by me: in practice we put considerable confidence in many beliefs or conclusions that are not formally proven.