Why Atheism is not a belief system

It's amazing how easily people's minds reset.  No matter the evidence and sound logic and that they sheepishly have to agree with you, dogma, like old habits, are hard to break.  This is what psychologists refer to as 'cognitive dissonance.'  It's the idea that a once held belief is challenged by an argument or position that cannot be refuted and the resulting conflict that arises out of it.  My experience with people who find themselves in this situation tend to throw out the new information and hold onto their original beliefs.  This very thing happened to me the other day with a friend regarding why Atheism isn't a religion....

Now I've blogged about religion before in earlier blogs.  But this will be a little bit more in-depth regarding the matter.

Each of us is born to think critically.  Children are always asking 'Why' questions because they're trying to establish a way of determine what is true and what is false.  Now, an un-indoctrinated child would stop asking 'Why' questions until they come to an understanding.  Let me illustrate with an example:

Little Billy: Where's grandmom?
Grandpa: She's in the hospital...
LB: Why is she in the hospital?
G: She broke her leg.
LB: Why did she break her leg?
G: She went outside and slipped on a piece of ice.
LB: Oh..

Now at this point in the conversation, Little Billy has an understanding that ice is slippery.  Why does he have this understanding?  Where does this come from?  Experience.  Sensory perception.  Reality.

Another line of questioning could be: Why do you go to the hospital when you break your leg?

Obviously, if this question is being posed, Little Billy's never been to the hospital or at least been in one where he remembered.  But the point is, 'Why' questions can be asked ad infinitum without having a framework in which things can be allowed to be true or false.  No one can really be told what is true or false.  That knowledge can only be ascertained through experience, logic and reasoning.

The job of science is to explain or describe phenomenon.  They can use mathematical equations and physics to express what is happening, to explain relationships between objects and then try to make approximate predictions in the future.  It's not the job of science to explain the 'Why' but rather the 'How.'  To many it sounds like a distinction without a difference but it's very analogous to explaining human behavior.  If someone asked you 'Why do you workout?' vs 'How do you workout?' you'll come up with very different answers, no?  The 'Why' question is about motivation.  The 'How question is about processes.

Possible answer to the 'Why' question could be: "I don't wanna get fat so I work out."  Again, one could ask more 'Why' questions until you reach the final answer 'That's just the way it is.'  You reach a point where everyone has an understanding because each person is also built the same way.  Everyone has values and preferences to which they cannot explain on why they hold those values and preferences - but they do.  People like chocolate over vanilla, blondes over brunettes, plastic vs. paper...etc.  You cannot explain why you have such preferences.  You just do.  It's just part of reality.  Just like Gravity.  No one can explain why gravity exists.  It's not science's job to answer such questions.  How gravity works is something science can explain.

So children naturally ask 'Why' questions because they want to get to the point where they understand something as true and then all the 'Why' questions in between make sense to them.  What they're doing is establishing a logical chain to which the original premise is a true statement.  The only way to evaluate the premise as true or false is through reality.

On the topic of theism, we are now stepping outside the realm of reality because there isn't a shred of evidence that Zeus ever existed or a Buddha or a God.  Just ask enough 'Why' questions and you'll either go in circles or you simply have to 'believe.'  I have no problem with that.  But to claim that not believing in a god is a belief is a misunderstanding of the word 'belief.'

Belief is an idea that something is real but fails the reality test.  In order to hold onto the belief, the believer must reverse the order in which they establish what they believe to be true.  They start off with an assertion such as 'God exists' and then seek evidence for which there is none.  To then accuse an atheist that they too hold a belief is an attempt to hold them to the same reversal of order as they are.  But that isn't the case.

The atheist concludes that there is no God.  The theist begins with 'There is a God.'  And here lies the crux of why atheism isn't a belief.  They too are like the theists in that they begin with a hypothesis that God exists.  The atheist treats that statement as possibly true or possibly false.  The theist, on the other hand, doesn't consider the possibility that the statement can be false.  The atheist begins testing the hypothesis, which is analogous to the child asking the 'Why' questions.  It's an attempt to gain an understanding.

If you always start with the position, 'Everything is possibly false' and then try to apply that to religion, you will have a very difficult task ahead of you.  In order to hold on to a religious belief is to temporarily suspend that position and say to yourself, 'Everything is possibly false except for X, Y and Z.'  In fact, that is exactly what they do.  Ever have a debate with a Christian?  It's astounding in some cases.  Some employ excellent critical thinking skills in attacking other religions and even science.  It only makes you wonder why they can't apply the same techniques on their own religion.