about
why atheism?
People sometimes ask why I spend so much time on atheism. The topic seems settled, either a boring conclusion or a hostile position. My answer is that most of us are looking at the wrong part of the story. The interesting questions have nothing to do with whether a god exists.
A good example comes from my recent work on Indigenous non-belief. A common assumption, a colonial stereotype, is that Indigenous identity is inseparable from spirituality. But narratives show a growing number of Indigenous people are leaving religion, both colonial Christianity and traditional supernaturalism. Their reasons are complex. Some are reacting to the trauma of religious colonization. Others find naturalistic worldviews more compelling. They are not abandoning their culture. They are asserting a right to intellectual self-determination by decoupling cultural identity from supernatural belief.
This is a perfect illustration of why the subject is so compelling. The real story is found in these overlooked spaces.
Studying non-belief is a way to examine how communities navigate profound social change. You get to see how secular values and institutions rise and what replaces religious frameworks. You learn how people construct meaningful lives and moral systems without divine authority. This is one of the major social transformations of our time, happening right now.
The study of atheism also provides a sharp lens for looking at stigma and social boundaries. You can explore how ex-Muslims navigate the double-bind of leaving their faith while being accused of feeding Islamophobia. You can examine how non-believers in deeply religious regions manage their social identities. This work reveals the mechanisms of in-group loyalty and out-group hostility in a raw, observable way.
Finally, non-religion is a major, if under-examined, factor in modern politics. The divide between the religious and the non-religious is now one of the most reliable predictors of political behaviour in North America. Understanding the values, demographics, and political goals of non-believers is essential to understanding the political landscape.
Studying atheism is not about debating theology. The work is about exploring human agency. The goal is to understand how people untangle themselves from historical trauma, family expectations, and cultural pressure to find their own intellectual path. That story is far more interesting than the old arguments.
questions I get
Even though countless books and articles have been written about agnosticism versus atheism, people continue to be confused. The persistence of this confusion is remarkable given how clear the terms are etymologically and philosophically. This observation is not meant to be condescending but comes from a place of genuine curiosity about why the misunderstanding is so durable. The distinction is not a minor semantic squabble. The terms address two fundamentally different questions. Atheism is an answer to the question “Do you believe in a god?” while agnosticism is an answer to the question “Do you think the existence of a god is knowable?”. Belief and knowledge are separate categories. Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. This means the terms are not mutually exclusive. A person can be an agnostic atheist. This position means lacking a belief in a god while also admitting that the existence of a god is unknowable. Most self-described atheists are in fact agnostic atheists. They lack belief but do not claim absolute certainty about the universe. The person who claims “I am agnostic, not atheist” is usually a weak atheist who is simply being intellectually honest about the limits of knowledge. The public confusion often stems from a social impulse. The “atheist” label carries significant stigma, so “agnostic” is chosen as a more socially acceptable, less confrontational term. The choice is frequently about managing social identity, not about philosophical precision.
Another question people ask is why I use the term “non-religion” in my academic work. The reason is that “atheism” is too narrow. Non-religion is a broader category that includes atheists, agnostics, and people who are simply indifferent to or disconnected from religious institutions. Many people do not have a philosophical position on gods but live their lives entirely without religious practice or consideration. This group is a huge and growing demographic. Their worldview and social behaviour are important to understand. “Non-religion” captures this entire spectrum of people who are not religious, providing a more accurate and useful term for scholarly analysis. Do I like the term? No, but it helps us study the social phenomenon of secularization without getting stuck in theological debates.
People also wonder if non-believers can be moral. This question assumes that morality must come from a divine source. A secular perspective argues that morality is a product of human evolution and social cooperation. Our moral instincts, like empathy, fairness, and reciprocity, developed because they helped our ancestors survive in social groups. We can reason about our actions and their consequences. We can build ethical systems based on well-being, harm reduction, and human flourishing without needing a sacred text or a supernatural judge. Secular ethics is not a free-for-all. The system requires rigorous thought and a deep consideration for the welfare of others. A person can be good without God. The evidence for this is all around us.
I sometimes hear the claim that all people are religious, whether they attend a church or not. The argument suggests that a belief in something, anything, constitutes a religion. On some technical level, this might be true. Our brains are pattern-seeking machines, a trait cognitive scientists call patternicity. We are prone to seeing agency where there is none. But this is a semantic game. If you define “religion” so broadly that it includes both a belief in a supernatural creator and a commitment to scientific methodology, then the word “religion” has lost all useful meaning. The term collapses under the weight of its own inclusiveness. People who make this argument are usually not interested in cognitive science. They are trying to flatten a meaningful distinction between a worldview based on faith and one based on evidence.
Finally, some ask whether a secular worldview is empty or meaningless. The search for meaning is a fundamental human project. Religion provides one framework for this search, but not the only one. A secular person can find profound meaning in human relationships, in the pursuit of knowledge, in the creation of art, in the beauty of the natural world, and in the effort to leave the world a better place. Meaning is not something you receive from an external authority. Meaning is something you create through your actions, your connections, and your commitments. The absence of a divine plan does not make life meaningless. The absence of a divine plan makes our choices and our brief time here all the more significant.
other pages
- projects: A grab-bag of current work, forthcoming publications, and other items.
- reading list: A log of books I’m reading or have completed.
- oddities: Miscellaneous thoughts and links.