Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.” This is all too true, and it’s partly the reason for my non-contribution as of late. The earnest truth is that my real life is not too exciting, and I therefore need time for the ideas in my head to ferment. I try to live before I write. With that out of the way and me cleanly off the hook, let’s proceed! (Phew!)

I’ll attempt to describe my atheism in negative terms. That is, I will list some non-reasons for why I’m an atheist; reasons that some people think I have for being an atheist but which are actually not the reasons at all (these are all accusations I’ve met in real life, by the way). This essay could be about refuting common misconceptions about atheists, but honestly, I’m only one person and can therefore only speak for myself. (Although in the back of my mind there’s a nagging feeling that these misconceptions apply to other atheists.) First, let’s tackle the term “atheist” itself. What does it mean? It comes from the Greek word “theos,” which means “god.” The a- prefix negates it, and thus the word means “without God.” I must admit right away that I don’t feel any particular connection to atheism (the philosophy, if such it be) itself. Many other labels exist to describe me. I’m a human, I’m male, I have black hair and blue eyes, two feet, etc. And this is exactly how I feel with regard to atheism. It simply correctly describes my views about the existence of gods (as it turns out, I don’t believe gods exist). Now, since an atheist is someone without a god, that should technically mean that there could well be a god, and the atheist could well believe that God exists, and yet walk “without God” (think about it). But of course, I go with the consensus definition, which is, “one who does not believe in gods.” Now, on to the non-reasons themselves, which I’ve labeled rebellion, nihilism, joylessness, and arrogance. Let’s tackle these in order:

Rebellion

This is the contention that deep down inside I know there is a God, and that I’m therefore in a state of rebellion by obstinately refusing to acknowledge His existence. This accusation is perhaps best disposed of on its face. I honestly don’t believe in any gods.

Nihilism

This is the notion that an atheist must necessarily be a nihilist, meaning someone who thinks life is without meaning (from the Latin nihil, meaning “nothing”). Of course, an atheist may be a nihilist, but for myself (and I suspect, for most atheists) this is simply not true. I find lots of meaning in my personal life (books, good company, poetry, nature, a clear evening sky where one can lie in the grass and “look up in perfect silence at the stars,” as Whitman put it). There are also those rare, precious moments when I become enraptured in the beauty of it all and feel, on a visceral level, the awesomeness of the cosmos. These things are entirely unrelated to atheism.

Joylessness

This is the idea that because one is an atheist, one must therefore feel no joy in life. “How can you bear living if you think there’s no ultimate supervision of things?” My own simple answer to this question is “I don’t know! I just bear it.” In truth, whether one finds joy in life or not shouldn’t hinge on such an academic point as whether or not one believes in God. (At least, I think it’s an academic point. For many people it’s an emotional point.)

Arrogance

Perhaps mislabeled (I couldn’t find a better word for this non-reason), the arrogance charge is one that says, “How unbelievably arrogant of you to assert that there is no God!” First of all, no rationalist worth his salt would insist on the non-existence of anything (excluding, perhaps, logically inconsistent things like triangular squares and male females and so on), and I certainly don’t insist there is no God. I simply don’t believe in Him, and I would hate to waste my precious time in worship to something which, it might turn out, doesn’t exist. Second of all, if we amend the charge to say, “How unbelievably arrogant of you to assert the probability that there is no God!” we’re closer to what I actually think, and I can then properly refute the accusation (it’s strange how often one assumes the other person has perfect conviction in what he says he believes, when it might turn out, as in my case, that he is not expressing perfect conviction at all, but is merely uttering a probabilistic statement). To my mind there is a huge distinction between what one believes and the conviction with which one believes it. As a trivial example, I am as close to 100% as I can be that I am, in fact, writing this essay right now, and that I’m writing it on my computer with a keyboard. I am about 80% sure that tomorrow I will finish the book I’m currently reading. I am about 70% sure that my friend Kai is in the city of Bergen right now (I haven’t heard otherwise, and I live pretty far away from Bergen, so I can’t know for sure). I believe all these three things, but to varying degrees of certainty.

In short, I can’t do much more than to deny these accusations and provide explanations of them, which I hope I’ve done.

Most Commented Posts