Skip to main content

Do atheists simply go 'one god further' than monotheists?

"We're all atheists about most gods; atheists just go one god further" is a one-liner popular among atheists today.  The quip should be used less frequently as it represents atheism only partially accurately.  The line is "sticky" in popular consciousness because it is funny; it is funny in the incongruous, implausible sense because we intuit that it doesn't fully represent what makes atheism significantly different from theism; and this intuition should be a clue that it is not, indeed, a good representation of atheism.

The phrase in question should be familiar to anyone who has done recent reading on atheism.  In the early days of the Internet, in 1995, Stephen F. Roberts used this tagline on the alt.atheism newsgroup:  "I contend we are both atheists.  I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."  That same year, Ibn Warraq published Why I Am not a Muslim, in which he wrote, "Monotheism is in its turn doomed to subtract one more God and become atheism."  A character in Peter de Vries's novel The Blood of the Lamb (2005) referred to monotheism as "just a step from the truth."

The New Atheists picked up the theme with gusto.  Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion (2006) pointed out that modern religious people are atheists "when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  I just go one god further."  Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great (2007):  "From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one.  They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure."  Guy P. Harrison in 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (2008):  "Remember, both the believer and the atheist are doubters.  They reject many gods alike.  The only difference is that the atheist went all the way and left no god unchallenged." 

A possible ancestor of this idea is in Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia (1782):  "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god.  It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

What can be said in favor of this shorthand phrase is that it's a first step toward demonstrating the reasonableness and commonality of the atheist position.  If it is reasonable for a Christian to disbelieve in Krishna, a Hindu to disbelieve in HaShem, and a Jew to disbelieve in Jesus, surely it is reasonable for an atheist to simultaneously disbelieve in all three of these gods.  Religious people have reasons for their disbelief in multiple rival gods.  The atheist shares the same disbeliefs and possibly even the same reasons for the disbeliefs.  This should make atheism seem less frightening and mysterious and reveal it as just another a human attempt at making sense of the world.

However, when the "one god further" trope fails to be perceived as a joke, it can misrepresent atheism as a type of religion.  It makes this implication by minimizing the difference between the theist and the atheist, claiming that they're using the same reasoning process and that their separate conclusions are nearly equally reasonable.  The error occurs in the implication that what is significant about religious belief is its associated disbelief in competing propositions.  "We're just like you," the atheist seems to say, "only we go one god further."  We know this isn't true; there are significant differences between the theist and atheist orientations, and they have to do with the positive rather than the negative beliefs.  It makes quite a bit of difference if one focuses on the idea of supernatural beings who interact with the world (as the religious person does) or on the idea that human thought, emotion, and moral value derive from material processes (as the atheist person does).  According to the aforementioned, commonly used definition of religion as a belief in spiritual beings (as famously described by nineteenth-century British anthropologist E. B. Tylor), atheism is not a religion.  Atheists do not theologize as theists do.  They do not peer into the theological stratum, scanning the horizon for gods as hunters waiting for deer.  Rather, they deny the existence of the heavenly spheres altogether without having first inventoried all the gods who might be in it. This is significant, because insofar as atheism denies the major province of religion, it behaves considerably unlike a religion.  It isn't as simple as monotheism minus one.

One might try to defend the "one god further" line from another angle.  Atheism lends itself to scientific, rather than faith-based, inquiry, and the idea of atheists going "one god further" does, in a way, back up the image of scientific inquiry.  If one wished to investigate the possibility of the existence of some-god-or-other using a scientific method of inquiry, a systematic review sounds like a good way to do it.  One could make a list of all possible gods and review their plausibility one-by-one.  Reaching the end of the list and finding no plausible gods, one could conclude that atheism has a rational basis and is emphatically not "just another faith."

However, the problem is that this is precisely not how anyone – religious or nonreligious – actually investigates the question of God.  No one draws up a list of five hundred gods which she then proceeds to review dispassionately, objectively, and sequentially, either screeching to a halt on God #187 with a "Eureka!" and "Hallelujah!" or else experiencing a dawn-cracking satori as her pencil ticks off God #500 and she arrives at the staggeringly new insight that she is an atheist.  Again, if it were practical to assemble a finite and complete list of gods and to review each one in detail, this process of elimination would be a perfectly rational approach.  Yet it is psychologically unrealistic.  Most of us are exposed only to one or two gods in detail during our formative years, and most of us seem to be predisposed toward spiritualist or rationalist leanings as part of our unique personalities which we bring as tinted lenses to the study of whatever god our parents might present to us.  After a few years of reflection in young adulthood, most of us have a sense about our general attitude toward religious belief that tends to be a fairly stable predisposition for the rest of our lives.  We usually develop our own brands of religion or atheism by chiefly contemplating one god, not several with equal attention, and certainly not legion.  Atheists do not sit at home pondering vast lists of gods any more than theists do.  Anyone who bothers to create or review such time-consuming, quirky inventories surely already has some prejudice that will bias her conclusion.

Therefore, atheists should avoid relying on the "one god further" line to support their arguments.  When the humor becomes stale, the comment will be seen to carry little philosophical weight.  As we have seen, it pretends to show that we all share the same lack of certain beliefs (which is not very interesting or meaningful) and it is not descriptive of the way that people actually develop their belief systems.  Instead of over-using this joke, atheists should focus on the positive beliefs that they share with theists-such as beauty, truth, and compassion-and the divergent ways that atheists and theists explain their acquisition of these beliefs.

This article was originally posted to Helium Network on July 24, 2011.


Popular posts from this blog

Castration at the Battle of Adwa (1896)

On March 1, 1896, the Battle of Adwa "cast doubt upon an unshakable certainty of the age – that sooner or later Africans would fall under the rule of Europeans." In this battle, Ethiopians beat back the invading Italians and forced them to retreat permanently. It was not until 1922 that Benito Mussolini would again initiate designs against Ethiopia; despite Ethiopia's defeat in 1936, the nation ultimately retained its independence. "Adwa opened a breach that would lead, in the aftermath of world war fifty years later, to the rollback of European rule in Africa. It was," Raymond Jonas wrote, "an event that determined the color of Africa." (p. 1) It was also significant because it upheld the power of Ethiopia's Christian monarchy that controlled an ethnically diverse nation (p. 333), a nation in which, in the late 19th century, the Christian Emperor Yohannes had tried to force Muslims to convert to Christianity. (p. 36) The Victorian English spelli

Review of Cliff Sims' 'Team of Vipers' (2019)

After he resigned his position, Cliff Sims spent two months in Fall 2018 writing Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House . Many stories are told, some already well known to the public, some not. One buys this book, most likely, to gape at the colossal flameout spectacle that is Donald Trump, as with most things with Trump's name. Sims exposes the thoughtlessness, the chaos, the lack of empathy among his fellow insiders in the campaign and later in the White House, but he does not at all acknowledge the real consequences for ordinary Americans — there might as well be no world outside the Trump insider bubble, for all this narrative concerns itself with — and therefore falls far short of fully grappling with the ethical implications of his complicity. Previously, Sims was a journalist. "I had written tough stories, including some that helped take down a once-popular Republican governor in my home state," he says. "I had done my best to be

War is still about power, not truth

President George W. Bush told the nation in his 2003 State of the Union that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when no weapons stockpiles had been found, the head of the Iraq Survey Group testified that it "turns out we were all wrong." President Bush had to admit this in Summer 2003, and he used the line "we were all wrong" in his memoir, Decision Points, in 2010 after he’d left office and while the war was still ongoing. Americans, then and now, rationalized the national error by compounding it, insisting on an additional mistaken belief that Iraq somehow contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A majority of Americans believed it at the time, and even today in 2018 the narrative still has traction. In reality: None of the hijackers were Iraqi. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz “was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11” but had the idea of “using” outrage over th