Atheism concerns belief in gods. In one widespread use, an atheist is someone who lacks that belief. In a common philosophical use, atheism is the position that no gods exist. Both uses matter when reading the history of the term. Someone can criticize stories about the gods while affirming that gods exist. Someone else can reject their existence and set out an account of nature and morality on other grounds. Epicurus and the Enlightenment writer Baron d’Holbach illustrate the difference. Paul Draper on atheism and agnosticism · American Atheists on its use of the term · Epicurus’s Letter to Menoeceus · D’Holbach’s System of Nature, volume II
Two answers that can sound alike
A person who suspends judgment and a person who concludes that there are no gods can both answer “no” when asked whether they believe in any. Only the second answers “no” to the separate question of whether any gods exist. American Atheists uses the broader sense of lacking belief. Philosopher Paul Draper explains why the narrower sense is useful in arguments about the existence of God. It distinguishes a conclusion about what exists from a person’s decision to withhold judgment. Paul Draper on atheism and agnosticism · American Atheists on its use of the term · Atheism and agnosticism
Epicurus criticized beliefs about the gods
In his Letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus describes gods as immortal and happy and explicitly affirms their existence. He also argues that familiar beliefs about them can misrepresent them. In the same letter he seeks to remove fear of death by reasoning that death ends sensation. Read together, these passages show how a philosopher can challenge religious ideas about how to live and what to fear while still affirming the existence of gods. Epicurus’s Letter to Menoeceus
D’Holbach explained nature and moral duties without a deity
In The System of Nature, d’Holbach defends thinkers who explain events through matter, motion and the relations between bodies. He treats appeals to an immaterial cause as an obstacle to understanding nature on its own terms. He also argues that people can have duties toward each other on grounds of equity and shared interests. His example asks how someone would respond to being robbed or betrayed. The injury itself gives a reason to take the wrong seriously. That is d’Holbach’s particular ethical argument, which goes beyond the basic question of belief in gods. D’Holbach’s System of Nature, volume II · Ethics and everyday conduct
From a belief label to public advocacy
A person may use atheist privately or as a public identity. American Atheists, for example, describes a programme of civil rights advocacy, education and community building for atheists and other nonreligious people. Its programme is a set of aims chosen by an organisation. The definition it gives of atheism asks only about belief in gods. American Atheists on its use of the term · American Atheists’ mission statement
Conclusion
To understand a use of atheism, ask whether the speaker is describing a person’s beliefs, making a claim about what exists or discussing a public identity. Epicurus’s letter shows how far religious criticism can go while leaving belief in gods in place. D’Holbach’s argument shows how an explicit rejection of divine explanations can be part of a larger philosophy with its own account of moral duties. Paul Draper on atheism and agnosticism · Epicurus’s Letter to Menoeceus · D’Holbach’s System of Nature, volume II
Published by Ralf. About our editorial process.
