The purpose of this essay is to highlight the blurring of fact and opinion that is all too evident in writing on the subject of religion. What follows are some comments on a section from the entry for Atheism that appears in the Catholic Encyclopedias which can be found at:

The article is identical in all of these, and is taken from the Original Catholic Encyclopedia which was published in 1914. The original text, unchanged, is in italics. Following an introduction to the concept of atheism, this part of the article gives the notion of positive atheism (strong atheism, active disbelief in a God) short shrift, before the remainder is spent dealing with negative atheism (weak atheism, not actively believing in a God), which is portrayed as being the more viable option of the two.

I am not attacking this article out of spite, I simply think it is important to realise that a great deal of that which is confidently put forward in fancy prose and technical terminology is no more than opinion. The article will of course not represent the opinion of most Catholics, but it is for exactly that reason that such false certainties should be revealed for what they are.

The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence [sic] of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school.

I certainly belong to the school that the author speaks of. I would naturally not use the word dogmatic to describe my position, since the concept of positive theoretic atheism must, when properly stated, only concern probabilities not certainties, but let us leave that for later and consider the reasons given in the article. We are told that we should trust ‘the common judgment of thinking men’. I wonder who these ‘thinking men’ are. Catholic thinking men? There is, as yet, no reason whatsoever given to reject such a notion as positive atheism other than that of the herd instinct.

Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought.

Here we are told that the aforementioned ‘thinking men’ were wrong to neglect such a position as having no supporters, because materialists support it. The prior assumption was that positive atheism was to be dismissed out of hand, so surely we can hope to see an effective dismantling of any attempt to ‘exclude the existence of any spiritual cause’. Our hope is short-lived. Apparently the fact that ‘such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical’ needs no demonstration. We are told that the reasons lie in the ‘facts’ and the ‘laws of thought’. I wonder here what the facts are. The phrase ‘laws of thought’ perhaps refers to the classic threefold set of rules:

  1. Whatever is, is.
  2. Nothing can both be and not be.
  3. Everything must either be or not be.

In my opinion the hypothesis that God does not exist stands up well against the laws of thought:

  1. Whatever is, is. God is not, so this is irrelevant.
  2. Nothing can both be and not be. God is not, so this is satisfied.
  3. Everything must either be or not be. God is not, so this is satisfied.

Perhaps the author is referring to some other laws of thought. My guess is that our friends the ‘thinking men’ have been at work again.

But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, …

We wonder who is being referred to here…

… and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type.

Atheists/Materialists. It seems the author is not without a sense of irony.

Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position.

Go on…

But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism.

Materialism does indeed provide an ‘inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism’, but merely because it provides a perfectly good basis for the positive form of atheism, the only rejections of which have been along the lines of ‘everyone I know agrees with me’.

In Conclusion

The Oxford English Dictionary says of Dogma:

  1. That which is held as an opinion; a belief, principle, tenet; esp. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down by a particular church, sect, or school of thought; sometimes, depreciatingly, an imperious or arrogant declaration of opinion.
  2. The body of opinion formulated or authoritatively stated; systematized belief; tenets or principles collectively; doctrinal system.

In the end we can describe any belief as dogmatic, using the word ‘depreciatingly’ as a desription of ‘an imperious or arrogant declaration of opinion’. The word is used widely to denigrate the opinions of others, and more often than not purely to add force to the authors own opinions. It is a simple thing to pick on the opinions of an author long since dead, so let us be clear what the problem is with articles such as these. The text is out of date, and very little stands up to even a cursory logical examination. There is no point picking on the opinions of the author, but we should feel justified in ridiculing anyone who takes such opinions and places them in the stead of fact. It is certain that we cannot be absolutely definite in either direction here, and to say that positive atheism could not be wrong would be naive. There are, however, arguments that amount to more than ‘I am a sheep’ for disbelief.

Giles Hayter
London
February 2009