Stephen Hawking, who devoted his entire life to scientific exploration and the search for the origin of the universe, publicly stated that he was an atheist in many occasions. In religious philosophy, one must deny the existence of God to be considered an atheist (Draper, 2022). In his last work, “Brief Answers to the Big Questions”, he declared that “there is no God, and no one commands the universe” (Hawking, 2018). Additionally, Hawking (2018) once said such a passage: 

We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; there is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. 

Hawking was an atheist in the sense that he chose the so-called “simplest explanation” of the universe. This means that he must have actively chosen atheism based on certain personal judgments. This process indicates that it is essential to emphasize the connection between what we believe in and our personal choices.

Was Hawking’s choice based on a logical process? What exactly is the connection between this “belief” and individuals’ choices? Do we have sufficient grounds to state that the thing Hawking revolved his entire life around until his final breath was implausible? 

In this essay, I will argue that atheism is not implausible as it conforms to the specific purposes and needs of human beings’ own actions as a non-religious faith, and it has both logical and existential plausibility.

As mentioned above, Hawking’s atheistic “beliefs” could be considered a kind of faith. Although faith is often associated with religions, it underlies our life commitments in general, and it is not merely a religious entity (Jackson, 2023). Regarding the essence of non-religious faiths, the key point lies in understanding faith as a practical or affective attitude—one that involves confidently committing oneself in thought, word, and deed to the truth of something, in certain circumstances (Gaultier, 2023). Thus, faith is not merely having hope in something, but rather a definite and affirmative positive tendency towards it, and being convinced that the matter in question will really happen (Alston, 1996). 

Given the prevalence of the practical and affective attitudes in atheism, atheism can be regarded as a non-religious faith. Clinton Richard Dawkins, a British bio-evolutionist, was known as the most determined and famous atheist in the world who largely promoted atheistic ideas. His persistence and efforts in promoting and disseminating atheism were undoubtedly astonishing. Dawkins (2006) once said such a sentence in his book,“The God Delusion”: 

I am 6.9 on a scale where 7 means ‘I know there is no God’. That does not mean I am agnostic. It means that I think the probability of God’s existence is very low, and I live my life on that assumption. 

In terms of his atheistic attitude, he believed that “God almost certainly does not exist.” This attitude is consistent with the practical and affective attitudes mentioned above. 

But how is this committed and certain attitude formed? We can observe the logic of atheists through studying the process in which they form their faith. Moral atheism is one branch of atheism that uniquely affirms the positive image of God. In chapter 4 of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, Ivan, the moral atheist, upon witnessing the suffering of many innocent people in the world, said to his younger brother Alyosha: “If the suffering of children goes to make up the sum of suffering needed to buy truth, then I say no truth is worth such a price” (Dostoevsky, 1991). Ivan’s motivation for becoming an atheist rests on the following reasoning: 

1. If God exists, He is a great and all-powerful being that would not allow unnecessary suffering.

2. However, pain and suffering do exist.

3. Thus, God does not exist. 

Since Ivan realized that affirming God’s positive image conflicted with the reality of mass suffering, it becomes evident that his reasoning is based on morality. The logical structure of his argument reflects the formation of his personal atheistic faith. 

Admittedly, the moral atheist’s logic is merely consistent with the basic thought process. And regardless of whether this logic is valid and provides satisfactory evidence to support it, it needs to be emphasized that Ivan believes it is valid even if theistic faiths disagree. This is because Peter Berger’s concept of “plausibility structures” explains how atheistic faiths can be logically plausible, and atheists do not necessarily bear the burden of proof to disprove theistic faiths. In his 1967 text, The Sacred Canopy, Berger argued that all religions operate under a particular logic which gives their beliefs authenticity. This means that Ivan’s moral atheism makes sense to him because his ideas fit within his criterion for what is possible in his world—as do any person of faith (Ammerman, 2020). Thus, from the perspective of the believer themselves, atheism is logically possible and irrefutable under their own plausibility structure. 

But not all atheists use the same logical plausibility structure as the moral atheist Ivan. The process by which each atheist forms a practical or affective attitude can be different, depending on their individual differences. Even the process by which two people with exactly the same beliefs form such attitudes must be different, as no one’s experiences and lives are completely the same. Since the construction of faiths itself depends on the logic of the individual, we need not consider whether that logic is or should be universally recognized.

Furthermore, in the study of religion, the plausibility of faiths is often misunderstood to mean only one thing: faiths must be logically possible in order to justify why they should be believed (Ballard, 2017). However, given the relative nature of the structure of plausibility, it is worth distinguishing how plausibility denotes the lesser form of logical possibility—i.e., the possibility of being serious (van der Helm, 2006; Noordman, 2013). Simply put, a logically possible argument with deductive, non-contradictory claims is not required to demonstrate the plausibility of atheistic faiths. Credibility requires only an inductive argument for an intelligible scenario.

On the other hand, this practical or affective attitude, which clearly permeates the behaviors and thoughts of atheistic believers, indicates that atheism possesses another rationale: the value of human existence. The way atheistic faith shapes human beings through practical or affective attitudes highlights its existential plausibility. Existentialists put forth a novel conception of the self not as a substance or thing with some pre-given nature (or “essence”), but as a situated activity or way of being in which we are always in the process of shaping or creating who we are as our life unfolds (Draper, 2022). According to the basic logic of existentialism, human beings can achieve true existence through the capacity for self-understanding and right choices. If a person demonstrates a complex set of attitudes and actions to inaugurate and maintain their faith, then it is the process through which they develop such skills. Any kind of non-religious faith that shows practical or affective attitude participated in the process of human beings creating themselves. For this reason, we cannot claim that any kind of belief is existentially implausible, because the changes brought about by belief do manifest themselves in human beings.

Another thing worth emphasizing is that atheism not only provides existential value for its believers, but also offers existential justification for other theistic faiths. By affirming the existential plausibility of atheistic, we recognize that both theistic and atheistic forms of faith possess this capacity: if one genuinely believes certain claims, religious or otherwise, failure of acting on them will likely cause cognitive dissonance (Jackson, 2024). A conflict of faiths does not lead to one side being implausible. Rather, it enhances the ability of faith to improve human existence by allowing both theists and atheists to increase their positive affective attitudes towards their respective faiths, as they will have to defend their position from criticism. This means that the existence of theism also provides room for atheist believers to justify their self-existence, enhancing the existential plausibility of both faiths. This debate between theism and atheism is one that humans must engage in.

Therefore, to sum up, the motives of atheists can be divided into three aspects:

1. To form practical or affective attitudes.

2. To run atheism faith in their thought and behavior.

3. To improve one's own existence in this process.

According to point (1), the logical plausibility of atheism has been well manifested and interpreted. Meanwhile, the existence of this attitude also enables atheism to be regarded as a typical non-religious faith. When atheists possess such a clear and affirmative attitude, this attitude will be reflected in their thoughts and actions. In this process, the value of human existence is constructed. Therefore, point (2) and point (3) are a continuous and coexisting chain of steps, which precisely indicates the existential plausibility that atheism possesses. In addition, the debate with religious faith, while verifying the existential plausibility of atheism itself, provides existential plausibility for religious faith as well. At this level, this kind of debate is beneficial to both religious and non-religious faith and to humanity. It enhances an individual’s practical attitude towards the behavioral level of faith and continuously deepens the existence of each individual.

The affirmative answer to the plausibility of atheism is therefore an embodiment of “authenticity” and “freedom”. It acknowledges that people are responsible for their identities and actions, and that they dedicate their actions to their chosen faith and causes. This kind of affirmation does not grant people this power, but rather this power is inherent in every human being. Thus, the logical and existential justification for atheism is certainly present and inevitable.

References

Alston, W. P. (1996). Belief, acceptance, and religious faith, In eds. J. Jordan & D. Howard-Snyder, Faith, freedom, and rationality: Philosophy of religion today.

Ammerman, N. (2020). Plausibility structure. In The SAGE encyclopedia of the sociology of religion (Vol. 2, pp. 582-583). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714401.n335

Ballard, B. (2017). The rationality of faith and the benefits of religion. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 81(1), 213–227. https://philpapers.org/rec/BALTRO-16

Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. Bantam Press. https://marxistnkrumaistforum.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion.pdf

Dostoyevsky, F. (1991). The Brothers Karamazov: A novel in four parts with epilogue. Vintage.

Draper, P. (2017). Atheism and agnosticism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Summer 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). 

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Gaultier, M. B. (2024). On the nature (and irrationality) of non-religious faith. Erkenne, 90, 1721–1741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-023-00776-2

Hawking, S. (2018). Brief answers to the big questions. Bantam Press.

Jackson, E. (2023). Faith: Contemporary perspectives. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/faith-contemporary-perspectives/

—. (2024). Can atheists have faith? Saint Louis University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12648/15535

Nordmann, A. (2013). (Im)plausibility2. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 9(2/3/4), 125. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijfip.2013.058612

van der Helm, R. (2006). Towards a clarification of probability, possibility and plausibility: How semantics could help futures practice to improve. Foresight, 8(3), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680610668045‌