Since you have defined cult, just wondering how you would define atheism?
Well, a typical dictionary definition is:
- 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God
- 2. Disbelief in the existence of supreme being(s)
English words are defined by consensus rather than by authority, so as the Linguistics Moderator I have to abide by this. Nonetheless, since you have access to the same online dictionaries, by asking the question you implied that you must want to know what the word means in my own idiolect, or in my own community: Americans with science-oriented university educations who caught the Baby Boom culture and the Generation Gap, but with the perspective of a few extra years of maturation.
By using "god" in the singular and capitalizing it, the first bullet seems to set atheism up specifically as the rejection of Abrahamist monotheism, whereas it's more general than that. And both bullets toss out the word "belief" without qualification, making atheism seem no more rational than theism, just an uncritical acceptance or rejection of what your parents taught you.
Speaking for myself and (I presume without calling for an Elders Council Meeting) my friends and colleagues, our atheism has a rational, scientific substratum.
As I have posted in several places, I state the fundamental definition of science as:
- The theory that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior, subject to peer review and various other tests.
- This theory is recursive, and is itself constantly being tested.
Although this definition was once a hypothesis (defined in retrospect, as I've never seen it stated that way even recently, much less at the dawn of the Enlightenment), after 500 years of testing without being falsified, it has achieved the status of a canonical theory: "true beyond a reasonable doubt," to borrow the language of the law (another habit I have explained in other posts).
One of the principles of the scientific method is the Rule of Laplace:
- Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.
Any assertion that contradicts a canonical theory, by definition, contradicts (in this case) 500 years of assiduous testing and peer review, and therefore automatically qualifies as "extraordinary."
At this point I must digress and contrast
theism with
deism. Deism is the belief that there are one or more gods who sit and watch the natural universe as their celestial soap opera. They do not meddle in its operation so we have no way to determine whether they do, in fact, exist. Deism is purely philosophical and does not deal with nature, so science has essentially nothing to say about it--and presumably vice versa.
Theism, on the other hand, is the belief that there are one or more gods who periodically interfere with the operation of the natural universe, causing illogical perturbations which can be observed and, therefore, provide evidence of their existence. Theism contradicts the canonical theory that underlies science, by hypothesizing that supernatural forces exist which violate the laws of nature and alter the behavior of the natural universe in illogical and unpredictable ways; in other words, by hypothesizing that the natural universe is not a closed system. (We've previously defined "closed system" pretty carefully: one that is not acted upon by external forces.) By definition then, theism is an extraordinary hypothesis, and the Rule of Laplace demands that its proponents submit their extraordinary evidence.
So: my restated definition of atheism:
- The application of the Rule of Laplace to the extraordinary hypothesis of the existence of gods who, as they are commonly described, use supernatural forces to perturb the behavior of the natural universe;
- i.e., the demand for evidence of the actions of these forces or any other evidence of the existence of these gods.
- Out of curiosity the demand for truly extraordinary evidence will not be enforced; ordinary evidence that is submitted in good faith will be treated with respect.
- Until such evidence is submitted, is tested, and raises questions which cast reasonable doubt on the underlying canonical theory of science, the hypothesis of the existence of gods is regarded as "false beyond a reasonable doubt."
- This is not the same as saying the existence of gods is impossible, merely that it's so extremely unlikely that it falls in the open-ended category of "fanciful things on which we cannot waste very much of civilization's finite resources, or we won't get anything else done."
I'm sorry I could not answer your question in a sound bite, but science is like that. It's all in the details.
uke: