This will be the first of "What is Atheism?" posts. Though I mostly intend to use this blog to post positive and inspiring aspects of our natural world, examining atheism/naturalism and its opposition is also something I find interesting.
A response to to Terry Mirll:
Judging from Terry's Mirll's letter, there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding surrounding atheistic world views. I will attempt to correct this distorted characterization, not in a defense, but rather to educate.
Getting past the somewhat sardonic introductory paragraph, we get to the first assertion, and what can ultimately be defined as the thesis. “Philosophically, atheism is founded on a contradiction.” He then goes on to defend his premise by proposing that the “standard” atheist will defend his/her self using the problem of evil. Mirll then goes on to tie this back to the thesis, suggesting that the problem of evil depends on the existence of a god.
The first problem is Mirll is taking a hypothetical example, and asserting it as universal. Not all atheists come to their disbelief the same way, nor do they hold the same reasons for their atheism. The same is true of religion. If I asked a certain type of theist why is theism true, I could get the response: “Because Joseph Smith's writings are true.” It would be not only false, but also disingenuous of me to suggest I could disprove all theism simply by showing that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Anecdotal evidence, and straw man arguments are not great ways to contend worldviews.
The second issue is Mirll's explanation of the problem of evil itself. The problem of evil is for the 'omnigod' of Christianity. It goes as such:
If an all powerful, loving god exists it would, by nature, prevent evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore an all powerful, loving god must not exist.
It supposes the existence of a god to determine a true/false result, it doesn't hinge on it. It is also not an issue for an evil or indifferent god, which is why it is generally not used as an argument for atheism, but rather an argument against Christianity. It has some shortfalls, and strengths which are discussed at length many other places. If it were self contradictory, Plantinga would not have had to formulate his free-will defense.
Therefore, his conclusion is ultimately false. Atheism is not faith-based, nor is it a religion.
