“God is a superstition just like any other, and should be treated as such”

Hugh Hill
BSs(Hons)Psych.

PO Box 26303, Ayr, KA7 9AB, Scotland, UK

The Secular Fellowship is a non profit making limited company. Scottish registration number 345998

Atheism - a modern definition

ATHEISM: Freedom from superstition in any of its forms.

ATHEIST: One who seeks to remain free of all forms of superstition.

“God is a superstition just like any other and should be treated as such”.
Many are the debates and arguments concerning the use of the word ‘atheist’. Nearly all of these have centred on the quite specific superstition of a god or gods. Why is this? Clearly it is derived from the word 'theist'. Atheist is a quite clear refutation of this particular superstition. Logically, the follow through definition of the word 'atheist' is 'god is a superstition'. But, here in the 21st century, why on earth should one superstition out of many become the default position when considering the use of the term ‘atheist’? The reality of confining debate to one particular superstitious belief means that the question of superstition, per se, is effectively being bypassed in favour of what is currently perceived to be the greatest superstition of all. This means that we are no longer arguing the merits of all superstition against no superstition, but instead are arguing the merits of one superstition, god(s), against the merits of other superstitions, i.e. fairies, goblins, demons, heaven, hell, limbo, prayer, etc. A disbelief in god or gods is a direct consequence of pursuing the atheist philosophy. Atheism does not exist solely as refutation of the existence of god(s) as some would have us believe. In today’s world this is a totally false argument.

This is the argument favoured by the agnostic who constantly insists that there may or may not be a god or gods. Using exactly the same logical fallacy, the argument is that there may or may not be fairies; there may or may not be demons; there may or may not be angels; there may or may not be a purgatory; and so the list of superstitions goes on. I must confess that I have never understood the reasoning of agnostics in this situation. Why pick and choose which superstitions to support, even partially, and which to reject? This is the logic of some of the religions who insist that those superstitions they claim to be true must be believed whilst other beliefs, not approved by them, are only superstitions. The absurdity of their stance in these matters never seems to occur to them. The similar lunacy of the use of the term ‘responsible agnosticism’ never seems to occur to some agnostics either. Agnosticism, responsible or otherwise, makes no sense whatsoever.

There are others, who should know better, who insist that we think in terms of probabilities when it comes to restricting the definition of atheism to that single superstition we know as god or gods. What probabilities? Either superstition exists or it doesn’t. There is no question of probability. To clarify the logic of this argument think in terms of fairies. What is the probability of fairies existing? Like all superstitions the answer is ‘nil’. Superstition is superstition. Either you are free from it all or not. Picking and choosing which superstitions to follow, as the religions do, or choosing which superstitions to which to give an element of credibility, as the agnostics do, is a complete nonsense.

Probably the greatest freedom we could pursue in today’s world, through politics and education, is freedom from superstition in all its forms. In other words – modern atheism.

Hugh Hill, BSc(Hons)psych. Executive Director, Secular Fellowship

Copyright © 2009 by Scorrybreck Web Designs. All rights reserved.