Is God an Atheist?

pauldla

So, this little gem of insight turns up on my FB page, attributed to someone called George H. Smith, who I must confess I have never heard of.

"Satan is not an atheist - that much is clear - for he believes in the God of Christianity.

We thus have the intriguing spectacle of a battle between two titans, with God the atheist on the side of good, and Satan the theist on the side of evil.

And if the Bible is to be believed, the atheist will ultimately triumph over the theist."

My (main) issue with this: without having recourse to the above-mentioned Mr Smith, I'm wondering by what means one could argue that God is an atheist.

Peregrinus

I think you probably do have to have recourse to Smith. According to Wikipedia his 1974 book, Atheism: The Case Against God "became one of the bestselling works on atheism published during the 20th century". I've never heard of his book, much less read it, but my chagrin at this is slightly lessened on observing Wikipedia's annotation of the "best-selling" claim with "[citation needed]".

The precise meaning of the word "atheist" is much debated, not least on this board, but given a common meaning like "lacking any belief in god", the claim that "god is an atheist" certainly looks a surprising one. So - wild guess here - perhaps in his best-selling book Mr Smith constructed an argument that God is an atheist, which starts from some non-obvious sense of "atheist", also explained and defended in his book.

If so, I don't think we can critique the argument without actually knowing what it is, and we can't know what it is without actually reading the book. Despite being a best-seller of the twentieth century the book is not easy to get (would you believe that not even Bookdepository has it?) but you can read it in full, for free here. Actually reading it, however, is left as an exercise for the student.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you probably do have to have recourse to Smith. According to Wikipedia his 1974 book, Atheism: The Case Against God "became one of the bestselling works on atheism published during the 20th century". I've never heard of his book, much less read it, but my chagrin at this is slightly lessened on observing Wikipedia's annotation of the "best-selling" claim with "[citation needed]".

The precise meaning of the word "atheist" is much debated, not least on this board, but given a common meaning like "lacking any belief in god", the claim that "god is an atheist" certainly looks a surprising one. So - wild guess here - perhaps in his best-selling book Mr Smith constructed an argument that God is an atheist, which starts from some non-obvious sense of "atheist", also explained and defended in his book.

If so, I don't think we can critique the argument without actually knowing what it is, and we can't know what it is without actually reading the book. Despite being a best-seller of the twentieth century the book is not easy to get (would you believe that not even Bookdepository has it?) but you can read it in full, for free here. Actually reading it, however, is left as an exercise for the student.

Ah, now that is an interesting link. Thank you kindly, I shall investigate further when I have time, unless I forget.

I suppose it does depend on how one defines 'atheism'. If God is indeed omniscient, then there would be no question of His needing to believe in Himself (unless He has self-confidence issues, which would be surprising, if not unbecoming, in a Supreme Being). So in that sense, I suppose one could argue that God is an atheist (if it was a really wet afternoon and the wifi was on the blink).

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Ah, now that is an interesting link. Thank you kindly, I shall investigate further when I have time, unless I forget.

I suppose it does depend on how one defines 'atheism'. If God is indeed omniscient, then there would be no question of His needing to believe in Himself (unless He has self-confidence issues, which would be surprising, if not unbecoming, in a Supreme Being). So in that sense, I suppose one could argue that God is an atheist (if it was a really wet afternoon and the wifi was on the blink).

And, you forgot to add, if strong drink had been taken.

It did occur to me that we - well, not you or me, but somebody less concerned about exposing themselves to ridicule and derision - could try to justify a "God is an atheist" claim by making a distinction between what we know, and what we believe. Since God, if He exists, presumably knows that He exists, he doesn't have to do anything so milk-and-watery as merely believe that He exists. Therefore, He lacks any belief in His own existence. Therefore, He is an atheist. Hah! In your face, loser!

The weakness of this approach is that it relies on an, ahem, non-standard definition of "know". A typical account of knowledge offered by philosophers is that knowledge is justified, true belief. On that view, far from being opposed to belief knowledge is a subset of belief. And this reflects how we commonly use the word. If, on being asked "Is the boss in today?" you reply "I don't believe so" and later seek to justify this by explaining that you knew he was in, I think most people would agree that you had answered the question with intent to deceive.

But, of course, I have no reason to think that this was Smith's argument. Most likely he has a much more robust argument, which will be disclosed on reading the book.

I'd read it this very night, except I have to . . . wash my shoelaces. Yes, that's it, my shoelaces need washing.

nozzferrahhtoo

God was certainly an atheist in this video.

Peregrinus

For crying out loud, ten minutes? I have shoelaces to wash! Can you give me the gist of it?

magicbastarder

i assume 'atheist' being taken as 'lack of belief in a supernatural deity', you could potentially construct an article that god is not 'super' himself, so from his perspective, he is natural. so he believes in himself, but to him, he's just a normal fun-loving guy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

For crying out loud, ten minutes? I have shoelaces to wash! Can you give me the gist of it?

Mildly humourous video where god is laughing at a recently dead atheist for being stupid enough to think he was not a created being....... but then in a stand off with one of his cherubs gets killed and meets the next god up who had created him.

This god he meets is an animation of, and subtle nod to, the comedian "Mr. Deity".

This continues over a few iterations in a blood bath of deity murders of well known historical deities......... until the end where all the gods die and float up to meet a human, who admits to having invented and created them all in the first place as a crutch in times of need and confusion.

LeinsterDub

If I don't believe in capital G God , god or gods but actually believe I'm a god am I atheist or theist?

Or if I am actually a god not just believing I am. Then I know there is a god I am it, so I don't believe in god I know in god

Now apply the same logic to capital G

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

i assume 'atheist' being taken as 'lack of belief in a supernatural deity', you could potentially construct an article that god is not 'super' himself, so from his perspective, he is natural. so he believes in himself, but to him, he's just a normal fun-loving guy.

Mmm. "Supernatural" doesn't mean "above oneself"; it means "above or apart from nature". (A Judeo-Islamo-Christian monotheist would say "above or apart from creation; uncreated"). So, if the God of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian monotheists exists, he would know himself to be supernatural, i.e. to be God.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, you forgot to add, if strong drink had been taken.

It did occur to me that we - well, not you or me, but somebody less concerned about exposing themselves to ridicule and derision - could try to justify a "God is an atheist" claim by making a distinction between what we know, and what we believe. Since God, if He exists, presumably knows that He exists, he doesn't have to do anything so milk-and-watery as merely believe that He exists. Therefore, He lacks any belief in His own existence. Therefore, He is an atheist. Hah! In your face, loser!

The weakness of this approach is that it relies on an, ahem, non-standard definition of "know". A typical account of knowledge offered by philosophers is that knowledge is justified, true belief. On that view, far from being opposed to belief knowledge is a subset of belief. And this reflects how we commonly use the word. If, on being asked "Is the boss in today?" you reply "I don't believe so" and later seek to justify this by explaining that you knew he was in, I think most people would agree that you had answered the question with intent to deceive.

But, of course, I have no reason to think that this was Smith's argument. Most likely he has a much more robust argument, which will be disclosed on reading the book.

I'd read it this very night, except I have to . . . wash my shoelaces. Yes, that's it, my shoelaces need washing.

Well I've read the first 20 pages and it's actually quite interesting. Give it a go; let the shoelaces wash the shoelaces, I say!

Peregrinus

Tell you what; when you get to the bit where Smith explains how God is an atheist, point me to it.

As Oscar once said to me, for one of us to read the book only to find that what we're looking for isn't there might be regarded as a misfortune; for both of us to do so would would look like carelessness.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If I don't believe in capital G God , god or gods but actually believe I'm a god am I atheist or theist?

If you believe in any kind of god, you're not an atheist in the usual understanding of that word.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Or if I am actually a god not just believing I am then I know there is a god I am it so I don't believe in god I know in god

See above. I can't know anything without believing it. If I know that I exist ("I think, therefore I am") I can't be said to lack any belief in my own existence.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

See above. I can't know anything without believing it. If I know that I exist ("I think, therefore I am") I can't be said to lack any belief in my own existence.

Believing requires a lack of knowledge or faith. I know 1+1 =2 . No belief or faith required

Peregrinus

As already pointed out, that's a pretty non-standard understanding of "knowledge" and "belief". A fairly mainstream account of knowledge is this; to say that I know X is to say (a) I believe X; (b) X is, objectively, true; and (c) I have good grounds for believing X.

On this view, knowledge is a particular kind of belief; it's a belief which is both justified and objectively true.

Cabaal

I suppose the bigger issue here is a god must exist before it can be first classes as anything, so when we see actual hard evidence for a god then we can debate if the god is an atheist.

Also, which god? There's alot!

Peregrinus

No, you can meaningfully debate whether a postulated god would necessarily be an atheist, as postulated. Presumably the claim referenced in the OP is such a claim.

After all, we can meaningfully make claims about numbers - LeinsterDub does exactly that in post #14 - without waiting for "evidence" that numbers "exist" (whatever that might mean).

As for which God, since the claim in the OP refers not only to God but also to Satan and to the Bible, I think it probably refers to the God postulated by Christianity. Pauldla may be able to clarify this when he completes the task he has so nobly undertaken.

recedite

I await Pauldla's book review, but I fear he/she has been sent into a deep sleep by it.

pauldla

recedite wrote: »

I await Pauldla's book review, but I fear he/she has been sent into a deep sleep by it.

Well I'm about 40 pages into it at the moment. It's quite good actually, he sets out the basic idea of atheism and what it does and doesn't entail, etc etc. Some parts brought a wry smile...

This irrational and grossly unfair practice of linking atheism with communism is losing popularity and is rarely encountered any longer except among political conservatives.

It's come back into vogue since he wrote, I think!

vibe666

hang on, if god is an atheist and we claim him one of our own, doesn't that mean we destroy ourselves and the whole idea of atheism implodes?

Peregrinus

OMG! You're trapped in Gibbs' paradox!

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

It's come back into vogue since he wrote, I think!

I hear you're a communist now, Professor Dawkins?

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

I hear you're a communist now, Professor Dawkins?

No, more like the 'Stalin was an atheist! Mao was an atheist! Look what they did, there's your atheism for you, etc etc' type comments that grace these pages from time to time.

Peregrinus

Well, in fairness, that's not so much an attempt to link atheism with communism as to link atheism with oppression and genocide. Which is fair enough, obviously. ;-)