Atheism

The Evangelical Outpost has a piece up on atheism. I'm obviously not an atheist, but that doesn't mean they can't be good folks. However while Joe Carter says there are four types of atheist I contest there are only really two; anti-theists and skeptics.

Anti-theists

Anti-theists take the position that there is no God. There is nothing skeptical about it which sets them apart from the Skeptics. The Anti-theists know that there is no God with certainty. Anti-theists often look down upon theists for being less rational or intelligent than themselves. In my experience, these are the sorts of people that may get angry when you pray for them or around them. Religion to them is often seen as a psychological crutch for the weak.

The funny thing is that anti-theism is not a rationally defensible philosophical position. You can't prove that there is no God. God is far too generic and broad a concept to be refuted in this way. You can try to refute someone's specific conceptualization of God, but there can be an infinite number of those and you get nowhere. So the anti-theist is no more rational than the theist. The only way you can be an anti-theism is by buying into an unproven assumption, which is the same act of faith as a theist.

Some anti-theists are people who just haven't realized the philosophical discontinuity within their belief system. They usually become skeptics once it is pointed out to them. Others I have met have had strong experiences that have caused them to break with religion. Often this can be the death of a loved one or family member or similar traumatic event that their old religious belief failed to help them with. They abandon religion altogether as a falsehood because of it. These are often the people who see religion as a crutch. It didn't help them through their traumatic event so they assume it is incapable of helping you through yours.

Skeptics

Skeptics describe themselves as lacking a belief in God. Carter's post uses the term "methodological athiests." How can you be sure a room isn't full of invisible bunny rabbits? You can't say the skeptics, but it is wise to assume that it is not. The logical default for skeptics is disbelief. In comparison, a theist would often say putting off decision until you know more would be wiser still.

Skeptics usually say that God hasn't met some standard of reasonable proof. If He did, we would relent and believe says the skeptic. The determination of what is "reasonable" is up to the skeptic though. With a sufficiently hardened heart they can doubt anything, even their own personal experience. Skeptics put a strong emphasis on truth in my experience, but their standards for establishing it are almost impossibly high. Honestly, I think a lot of these people have their minds made up already.

A skeptic, in my experience, will rarely look down on a theist like an anti-theist will. The reason is that you may know or have proof of something they do not. They don't hold your opinion of course, but live and let live.

Frankly, I find both philosophies small-minded and lacking in warmth or hope. But then thats why I'm not an athiest. I respect the skeptical athiests more than the anti-theists myself. Their belief system is at least fairly consistent. Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost feels the opposite. He respects the anti-theists because at least they have faith. To each their own.