Almost all of atheists in the world proclaim loudly that atheism is neither an ideology nor a belief or a faith. Really?
If according to you all my atheist friends, atheism is not an ideology, then I can conclude that you do not understand what ideology is. Literally, “ideology” is the “logic” of any “idea” one maintains. If atheism is not an ideology, it means all of you atheists do not have any idea about it, and don’t have any logic whatsoever why your idea is such and such. So, let me ask you atheists, are you sure that atheism is not an ideology, not an idea that has its logic to make it meaningful to those who adhere to? I hope you live not in denial again and again.
I am sure that you atheists want me to give you a full definition of ideology. Ok, here it is, quoted from Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Ideology is
So, I hope you now to be widely open to accept the fact that atheism is an ideology. But, ok, if atheism is not an ideology, the alternative is that atheism is a faith, in the same meaning Christianity is understood by almost Christians. Almost all Christians do not want Christianity to be considered ideology. They say, Christianity is not an ideology created by humans, but a revelation sent by their God to be accepted faithfully as infallible by faith alone. If atheism is a faith in the same way Christians view their religion, alas this faith of atheism itself is an idea too that has a logic of its own―in other words, in this regard, atheism is an ideology whose validity is based on faith.“Any comprehensive and mutually consistent set of ideas by which a social group makes sense of the world. An ideology needs to provide some explanation of how things have come to be as they are, some indication of where they are heading (to provide a guide to action), criteria for distinguishing truth from falsehood and valid arguments from invalid, and some overriding belief whether in God, Providence, or History, to which adherents may make a final appeal when challenged.”/1/
Of course you atheists need another clarification to make you well-informed. Asking atheists to provide empirical evidence of the non-existence of God is entirely different from asking someone to prove that dragon or unicorn factually exists. Asking atheists to prove that God does not exist is scientifically necessary because they claim that atheism is a scientific debunking of theism or a scientific antithesis of theism. So far as I know, until now in the modern world, there are no official world religions that we call Dragon Religion or Unicorn Religion. Of course I know that dragon is a fictive animal that has an important role in the symbolic world of Chinese religions; but no Chinese will call their religions as Dragon Religions. Therefore, none wishes to make her/his life busy to scientifically debunk the Dragon Religions which do not exist in the real life.
Of course, we all know well, both theism and atheism cannot provide valid empirical evidence altogether for each claim about God, either God does exist or God doesn’t exist. To conclude, both theism and atheism are two different BELIEFs or FAITHs. The former is the belief or the faith that God exists; the latter is the belief or the faith that God doesn’t exist. In other words, theism is a religion of the existence of God; atheism is a religion of the non-existence of God. I am going to justify this strong contention of mine.
“Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questioning, courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God.”/2/
Dear my atheist friends, I want to emphasize again that I don’t equivocate the word “god” in this writing of mine. Very clearly, for me, “god” is a theistic concept in theology, in the same way as the word “market” is an economic concept in free-market capitalism. Viewed from ideological studies of religions, the word “god” doesn't refer to an entity physically and ontologically dwelling in the sky, but refers to the highest value in any theistic religions, in the same way as the American or European cultural idea of goodness is referred to by atheists as the highest value in their belief system named ideological atheism.
No ideological systems in this world do have no gods. In capitalism, the god being worshiped is money, capital and free market. In Americanism as a civil religion the god being honored and glorified is the state, the USA constitution and the people of America. In democracy, its god is the voice of the people and the positive laws. In liberalism, god is secularity and free speech and free mind. In theism, god is the personal entity imagined to live in heaven.
- either the atheism itself imagined by atheists as the perfect and final ideology;
- or the best and most perfect god in the universe after this god kicked the gods of religions to nowhere;
- or a certain cultural idea of American or European goodness;
- or even the dreams of atheists themselves about science being the servant of the atheistic Lords;
- or the individual atheists themselves who glorify themselves very high, and then are followed and obeyed blindly by their pupils and followers;
- or even, sadly, the rage and hatred atheists often reveal toward religions and religious believers. This atheist God has the name Religiophobia. Those are, minimally, the gods of atheism, in my opinion.
- But, I think, for now I can add another mantra of atheists, which functions as another god in atheism, namely, their statement of belief or their statement of faith they have constructed, that is, “Atheism makes no claims. It is a lack of belief and nothing more.” What is very funny is that they even are really unaware of the fact that this statement is a claim and a belief too. They seem to be unaware of the fact that atheism, as does theism, has many fictions or myths. I have listed here at least 32 fictions or myths atheists actually embrace. Incredibly indeed!
“Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that is concerned with how you know something is true. One characteristic that is shared by all religions, even the most harmless and liberal religions, is a bad epistemology. . . . So our singular aim should be not the combating of religion alone, but the combating of all bad epistemologies. . . . The first goal of humanism, therefore, must be the pursuit of installing in ourselves the best epistemology we can find, which must be an epistemology that is itself self-testing and self-improving—so that if it is flawed, we will be steered constantly toward finding those flaws and fixing them. . . . Escaping religion is not enough. If you stumble into a secular ideology that is just as false and just as harmful as any religion, you have made no relevant progress. You’ve just replaced one kind of religion for another.”/3/Where is the position of mine? I take the agnostic position. Agnostic means that we presently cannot know precisely whether the transcendent dimensions exist or not. I intentionally do not use the term “gods”, but the “transcendent dimensions” instead to refer to the realms that theists understand as the supernatural realms in which their various gods are believed to exist.
But, what is infinity? For me, infinity is the scope, the dimension, the room, the space, the quantity, and even the quality, which are always, always, always beyond the limits and the borders humans want to make. Because of infinity, there are always dimension, room, space, scope, quantity and quality that are always bigger, greater, deeper, wider, than those humans can imagine about.
In the second paragraph of chapter 13 of his book entitled The New Flatlanders: A Seeker's Guide to the Theory of Everything, Eric Middleton writes, “The challenge was to make sense of a spiritual reality beyond the reductionism of the three-dimensional world picture of Richard Dawkins, who focuses on the physical, ruling out any dimensions of the spirit. We shall move beyond the positivism of Stephen Hawking where only what can be tested and proved is true, to the models of transcendence in today's physics.”/4/ In some ways, I have the similar idea with Middleton’s, but I am of the opinion that physics one day in the future can demonstrate empirically, not only mathematically, the existence of the transcendent dimensions which, according to string theory, consist of 22 dimensions (our own 4 dimensions of spacetime excluded). Physicist Brian Greene, in his book The Elegant Universe, says that one or more of these extra-dimensions (that is, 26 minus 4 dimensions) may well be comparatively large even infinite./5/
/1/ Ian McLean and Alistair McMillan, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996; 2nd edition 2003; 3rd edition 2009).
/2/ Carl Sagan, Broca’s Brain: Reflection of the Romance of Science (New York: Random House, 1974, 1979), p. 365.
/3/ Richard Carrier, “Why Atheism Needs Feminism”, Freethought Blogs.com, at http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/6788.
/4/ Eric Middleton, The New Flatlanders: A Seeker’s Guide to the Theory of Everything, (West Conshohoken, PA.: Templeton Foundation Press, 2007), p. 134.
/5/ Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1999, 2003, first edition), pp. 184 ff.