Atheism, Belief, and the Burden of Engagement

.

Belief, Unbelief, and the Burden of Engagement

By William W. Collins

Introduction: A Passive Position or an Active Stance?

Atheism is often framed as a lack of belief, nothing more. And yet, many atheists engage in debate, challenge theistic arguments, and critique religious frameworks. One might ask - 

If atheism is merely defined as an absence, a non position, unintentional, why intentional, purposeful, and persistent engagement?

One doen't pursue a girl if not interested. If someone does not believe in astrology, they don’t spend hours arguing with astrologers. If ghosts are nonsense, why debate paranormal investigators? Does an intentional level of involvement in any matter suggests a passive, disinterested, detached disbelief? No—it is an assertion manifested by action. And usually indicative of a worldview, even if unacknowledged. A worldview that demands and is driven to action. And worldviews. Do we not, each and every one of us possess this - a belief formation by which we operate? By which we live? Beyond all presumed masks, all rhetoric, whether theist. Whether atheist. We are all the same.

A Worldview, Even If Unspoken

Everyone operates from a worldview, a lens through which they interpret reality. One may deny having one, and yet we live, we navigate, make moral judgments, and seek meaning like everyone else. Even now, reading this, your worldview is operating. Actively operating as you process these words. Infested, processed, translated to thoughts and compared to what you belief. Your formulated belief - your world view. It is inescapable.

The question is: What underpins those processes that belief structure and the ending judgments, and reactions? And how does that system of belief react when faced with questions that mankind has grappled with not just for centuries, but millennia.

• The Universe — Why does it exist? Why is it ordered, fine-tuned for life? Is the answer mere happenstance, or order?
• Consciousness — Are thoughts, love, and creativity just chemical reactions, or do they point to something more?
• Morality — If everything is material, just random stuff, why do concepts like justice or fairness hold any weight and meaning to us? Even if we say social construct. What is the essence of "right vs wrong" among one, then finding that same commonality among many? That would even drive toward consensus. 

Frameworks of belief. In how reality operates and behaves, dictates the lens of how we live, and also affects how we formulate answers to the questions above. And thete may be many possible fireworks, but there are two that are common in addressing the questions above. Materialism. Ad a framework, struggles to explain these questions. Also, Theism, which provides a robust framework built over centuries. Even if one disagrees with the belief itself, one cannot argue that has structure and explanatory power. 

But What is atheism’s alternative? You may say that it doesn't have one, that it doebt need one. Fine. The concept perhaps does not. But as we discussed above, the individual? Does. You could argue this point as well. But in arguing, are the concepts that you ingest right this very moment being compared to something? A formulation of beliefs - some even deeply held, that even illicit derp emotional response. Your worldview? So, atheist or not, as individuals, we cannot help ourselves. It is the very essence of being "human."

And so, to test this. Gauge the response to the following quote. As it existentially bumps into a worldview, perhaps your worldview. Pause if you will to ponder the reaction. Long enough to examine the thoughts, the emotions. It is (the quote) in reality, merely letters and words constructed by some dude a while back in time. And that's it. Or is it? Is our entire worldview, our belief construct, wildly activated one way or another? Do we embrace it, negate it offhand, or do we deeply engage. And is that engagement reactionary, or contemplative? Do we engage the prefrontal cortex first? Or the amygdala? And if it renders a truly neutral response. And apathetic response. Why even a need to engage at all?

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” — Werner Heisenberg

The Curious Engagement of Unbelief 

If one truly lacks belief, why argue? Why keep asking for evidence, dismissing it, and coming back for more?

Imagine a man who claims he has no interest in swimming. Yet, he spends his days at pool supply stores, questioning swimmers and debating the necessity of water safety. Would we take his disinterest seriously?

The intensity of engagement suggests something deeper. Perhaps it is not about disbelief, but resistance. And whether thesurs, atheist, agnostic - perhaps the question of God is not irrelevant—but unavoidable.

The Challenge of Explanation

Now, let us revisti the concept of frameworks. Theism one could argue, does not evade hard questions—it wrestles with them. It stupidly works to constructs answers. To understand reality rationally, with reason and with respect to philosophies - not only within the confines of metaphysics, but also the philosophy of science. This is the rational, intellectual and scholarly stance and not to be confused with the purely scriptural, fundamentalist stance of many what me be grouped into what one could define collectively as "religions."

Now, Atheism, if it claims to be more than negation, must it not do the same? If it is a worldview, should it not explain:

• Why the universe exists rather than nothing at all.
• Why rational thought is trustworthy in a purely material world.
• Why morality is binding if it is only a social construct.

If it cannot, is it truly the intellectually superior stance it claims to be?

“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism must demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, ‘I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.’” — Ravi Zacharias

A Call for Intellectual Honesty

If one is agnostic—uncertain, searching—there is no issue. That is a stance of humility. But certainty in atheism demands more than negation. It demands explanation.

Theists do not avoid scrutiny. They present arguments—cosmological, moral, metaphysical. Atheists often respond with rejection, not construction.

And If atheism is truly nothing more than lack of belief, what value does such an argument hold in daily life? People live, act, and decide based on a framework. Can one truly function without one? Or is the claim of "no belief" merely rhetorical, detached from reality?

“Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.” — Tom Stoppard

Conclusion: The Question That Won’t Go Away

Truth-seeking demands more than tearing down—it requires building. If atheism is more than just disbelief, what is it? And if it is merely an absence, why engage so passionately?

A question ignored does not cease to exist. The debate continues because it must. If atheism were truly a settled, empty stance, it would not need defending.

Perhaps the very act of arguing betrays the fact that the question of God is still very much alive.

“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.” — Isaac Newton

William W. Collins

divine-physics.williamwcollins.com