Can an atheist believe in God?

Great Debates
1

Before jumping to the obvious “no, of course not” please consider the following:

“Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” Only a fool would maintain Santa Claus’ existence as a fact, and yet there is a ring of truth to this famous newspaper exchange. Put more pragmatically, I as a parent participated in the Santa Claus mythos with my children for the purpose of entertaining my kids, and to a lesser extent to demonstrate the value of generosity. I totally get that some parents feel uncomfortable “lying” to their kids and do not participate. They do not “believe” in Santa Claus. I do.

Let us stipulate for this discussion that there is NO evidence for any God or gods (a view I personally do hold). In fact, let’s go further: There is no God. What I wish to explore is: What value is there in “belief” in God anyways?

What got me thinking along these lines is an incident with my son. He was doing his chores around the house when he’d rather be throwing the football with his buddies. Understandably he was performing half-assedly. A teachable moment. What sprang to mind was “Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” - Colossians 3:23. I let the moment pass without comment (it was no big deal, really). But I do believe in the idea behind that verse. I could have re-interpreted the idea without reference to God. But what an elegant shorthand!

Let me be clear: I’m not saying that just because the Bible contains a truth or two is reason to adopt all of it’s teachings whole hog. I’m focussing on just that verse, and in particular the clause “as unto the Lord” with particular emphasis on “as.”

Let me digress for a moment: Author and noted atheist Douglas Adams speculates there may be value to the practice of feng shui, despite practitioners considering whether a dragon would like what you’ve done with the place. He contrasts the difficulty of calculating the trajectory of a cricket ball to the ease with which we can catch it. He compares this to feng shui, suggesting talking about dragons may be an simple intuitive expression of what architectural theory would have difficulty finding the correct terms for. The stories that exist before science have value, even if science discredits their foundations. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, he cautions.
from a speech titled “Is There an Artificial God” given at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge, September 1998, as published in “The Salmon of Doubt”

So going back to my son, is there value in the thought experiment: what would “God” think of how he was sweeping the floor? If I teach that verse to my son, must I always reinterpret it first - only ever giving him a Godless version? I mean, can I do so while simultaneously calling myself an atheist? Or does it make one a theist by definition to say that sometimes it works to consider a mythical God’s involvement in a matter of morality or behaviour?

To summarize:
Can we use “God” in discussions of man’s place in the universe as we do “Schrödinger’s cat” in discussions a quantum particle’s place in the macroscopic world? Assuming so, is it conceivable that a sound behavioural framework can be built on the notion of “what if there is a God?” If the soundness of such a framework was compelling to an atheist, could that atheist then be said to “believe” in God and still get to keep his membership card?

2

Without jumping to conclusions, thoughtfully considered, my answer is still the obvious “no, of course not”.
Sorry.

3

No, by definition an atheist does not believe in any god. However that does not stop him/her from deciding that the Golden Rule, several of the Ten Commandments, and various other sayings and fables from Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are good ways of verbalizing rules for reasonable behaviour.

4

So what’s the question, really? Can an atheist still do the right thing? Yes, he can. He would have no need to invoke God as an excuse.

5

I think what you’re proposing is using God as a metaphor, or a shorthand, to deliver a lesson. To which I (predictably) say, “why not?” But I don’t think I’d say that the same as “believing” in the existence of a god.

That’s mostly how I use it, 'though I consider myself an agnostic pagan. I don’t literally believe that there’s the chick, see, and every winter she goes down into the ground and is queen of the dead people and her mom is really sad so we have winter. But I do use the Persephone/Demeter story as a teaching piece, 'cause I think it has a lot of wise things to say about letting go of things we can’t control and allowing ourselves time to mourn those things that don’t turn out the way we thought they would. And I tend to feel an emotional resonance to that story in the fall time for some unknowable reason.

IANAA, however, so I don’t know the “official” answer.

6

An atheist can believe in the laws of thermodynamics that are as absolute as theists claim their god is, without worshipping the laws of thermodynamics, as well as operating by personal standards of behaviour that are demonstrated to make life easier, without participating in unthinking mechanical ritual.

This doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist; it demonstrates that God is not necessary to live usefully and productively. A believer in God who feels God is the source of all things and the standard of all things can’t make this separation.

And no, of course not.

7

Short answer, no. But an atheist can believe the concept of God exists for people, just like acknowledging the concept of Santa Claus exists, even if a physical Santa does not.

Or, you can do what Scott Adams did with his God for Weasels concept… fence sit and get the best of both worlds.

As for your kid’s sweeping, the truth is that YOU have a problem with his attitude while sweeping, not God. Invoking God in this situation strikes me of finding the best consequence-free patsy to blame.

8

God is not required to regulate nor consider morality. God does not exist. Atheists not only can be good people and do the right things, they are arguably more moral because their actions are performed without fear of some boogey man punishing them.

I can say without equivocation that I believe in fundamental human rights. But I cannot point to where in a human’s DNA these rights exist. I align my personal philosophy as if humans were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. In my opinion, the world would be a better place if we all acted as if this was true - even though I reject the idea of an actual creator. Can I say this and still join the atheist club? If so, at what point must I relinquish that membership?

I’ve told my kids Aesop’s Fables, using them as shorthand devices for what would take longer to discuss using strictly theoritical language. Not one of the stories are true in any literal sense. But Aesop’s Fables are a collection of individual stories with no interconnectedness. Let’s say I want to improve on his work and create a set of stories that are set against a unified backdrop. So I’m going to combine the “morality” story of Aesop idea with the universe building idea of Asimov, Heinlein, or Tolkein.

Let’s say I begin by creating a character named God who created the world. Or… wait, let’s say the God character represents a Gaia-like coming to self-awareness property of the entire universe. Whatever… my story had a character called God.

Now (to really exagerate the fiction here) let’s also say I’m this generation’s greatest philosopher. I am able to derive principles of ethics and interpersonal behaviour, communicating them using the character God as a metaphorical device. A more technical alternative would be tediously difficult, less interesting, whatever - that’s just stylistically how I chose to do it.

So along comes an atheist, reads this ethical framework and is compelled by it’s accuracy in terms of the ideas it tries to convey. The atheist says, “I know there is no God, but these ideas make enough sense to me that I choose to adopt these ideas.” Is he still an atheist?

Put simply, is atheism merely the rection of the existence of God, leaving the atheist free to practice any theistic framework they see fit? Or is atheism a fundamental and absolute rejection of anything theistic in any way shape or form.

9

I believe Plato endorsed this concept of a “noble lie” useful for teaching and lending authority to moral teachings.

10

You’re correct, of course, that I am the one with the problem. But I don’t want to impart the idea, “You’d better strive for excellence only when I’m watching.” There are times he’ll be alone and faced with a choice to act half-assedly or strive for excellence. In my opinion, he should act as if God were watching waiting to reward him (God’s rewards mentioned in the next verse) - even if no one else knows.

I have no problem winging an explanation of this idea without reference to that Bible verse. No doubt we will reach an understanding of what I’m trying to communicate. But, if I dust off the Bible and quote that verse - how much more weight the idea has! My kids know very well I do not believe in God. I know I can safely quote the Bible’s nuggets of wisdom without risking converting them into fundamentalists. The fact that the meme of “excelling without witnesses” appears in an ancient text gives it a depth that yet another of Dad’s life lessons alone would lack.

11

When your kid is alone, HE (himself, not God) will be watching. He will know the halfassedness of his actions and will have to live with them forever. The character of a person is the way he acts when he is not being watched. Again, there is no need to invoke God to get good behaviour (and this is theist saying this!)

Atheism is either a belief in the non-existence of God or a lack of belief in the existence of God. If your own morality happens to coincide with that of a religion, then so be it. That won’t make you less of an atheist (you won’t have to return the clothes iron they gave you). Being an atheist is not a challenge to do the exact opposite that the religious do.

12

I would say Yes. Just because the (ultimately) social framework for theistic beliefs makes sense doesn’t mean that the underpinnings do.

I would say it was the former - there are atheist Christians (in the “Christ as moral teacher” sense), and there are some atheists I personally know who go through all the trappings just to get the social benefits.At heart, they are still atheists.

It really is that simple: “Don’t believe in existence of God <=> Atheist”. Whatever other frameworks are built up to deal with morality or life are still built around that fact, and any attempt to live “as if God was watching” is just that - an attempt that must ultimately ring hollow, even if it is a utilitarian approach for some. The atheist knows there is no God*, so he knows he’s just pretending. Like I am with Father Christmas, Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny, when I use them on kids.

  • or is satisfied that his degree of certainty as to God’s nonexistence, if you prefer.
13

So are you saying that if it’s useful to teach your child from Aesop’s fables, that you should also try and convince him that there were really talking animals in ancient Greece? I’m not seeing the worth… :dubious:

14

I know atheists who say they believe because “what if there IS a god?” But they don’t really believe. By definition, an atheist CAN’T believe.

15

So what can we call a person who practices some form of theism while not being convinced in the existence of the God at the centre of that theism? Is he still an atheist?

Isn’t Hinduism a form of a God-centric philosophy which doesn’t really require the gods/godesses in its traditions to actually exist? Can one be a atheist Hindu and still participate in any god’s festival without hypocrisy?

16

I think everyone in this thread is wrong. In fact, atheists are actually deranged sinners who have no place in civil society. Just look at me.

Leave the Jews outta this. :wink:

I don’t know enough about Hinduism to comment but if it’s anything like Christianity, probably. I celebrate Christmas and I rarely think of Jesus except when there’s a manger scene somewhere or someone cracks a joke about the baby Jesus. The holiday has other uses beyond its religious roots.

17

The way you’ve phrased it there where I’ve bolded makes him an agnostic, not an atheist. But how, pray tell, can he practice theism while disbelieving? If you mean “go through the ritual motions” then yes, he can, and still be an atheist.

And yes, if he does so while outwardly pretending to believe, then he’s a hypocrite. But if he goes through the motions without it being an issue - i.e. it’s just assumed he believs and no-one asks for clarification (and I, myself, have done this at both Catholic and Hindu rituals) then no, he’s just being sociable. A little deceptive, sure, but not a hypocrite, as long as he’s internally clear on his reasons and upfront about it if asked.

18

I’m an atheist who derives a lot of meaning from many works of literature/thought, the Bible being one of them.

I can think the stories in the Bible contain truth and wisdom and yet not at all believe in a god, in the same way I can believe The Lord of the Rings contains truth and wisdom yet not believe in Iluvitar or Gandalf or Frodo.

A story can contain truth without being factual. If you don’t believe in God you don’t believe in God, but you could still find meaning and inspiration in Biblical passages.

ETA: . . . all in my humble opinion, of course!

19

And when he is old enough to sit down with you to discuss religion, and you tell him what you don’t believe, and he, being a smart kid, agrees? Isn’t it better to give him actual reasons for doing things? Like being self-motivated gets you ahead in life?
Now at a certain point, “because I said so” works also. But you should start with real reasons.

God is useful sometimes as a metaphor, the way Einstein used it. But so is the Maxwell’s Demon, and you don’t have to believe in them.

20

I am an atheist, and I have been using exactly this idea for several years now. In fact, I often think that I “believe in God” in this sense. I took some sociology courses in college, and I have come to believe that any supernatural entities that humans have worshipped or hated or believed in are themselves metaphors for the society that created them.

I think about it this way: let’s say a Rabbi tells me, “God says we must do no work on the Sabbath.” I would interpret that as, “In our Jewish society, we all use the Sabbath as a day of rest and reflection and you must do the same.” I see the two sentences as completely equivalent. So I think “God” is a useful shorthand for overall directives of a culture. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”, as a rule, doesn’t come from any one person. It’s something that many of us practice, and so it very much does have a superhuman force behind it, in a literal sense of the word.

Nature’s Call, I am myself young, so I may not be qualified to offer parental advice, but I would say that using the religious lessons isn’t a bad idea. You can help your son sort out the more abstract implications later. My $.02.