Atheism is invariably viewed in essentially negative terms.

This isn't really surprising. After all, atheism is nearly always portrayed as being against something: against religion, against God, against Jesus, against the idea of eternal life, against the concept of an immortal soul ...

Although I can understand (and, to a certain degree, empathise) with this view of atheism, I still think it is fundamentally unfair.

I have been an atheist for most of my life, but I certainly do not think of myself as a negative person. I have a positive outlook on most things: philosophy, politics, ethics, culture, human relationships, etc.

I just don't happen to believe there is a God, that's all.

Ah, but that isn't all, is it?

Throughout history the word "atheist" has been perceived as the ultimate insult. It has often been equated with immorality, pessimism, nihilism, despair......

For fifteen hundred years or so, those who were brave enough (or foolish enough) to profess their atheism - or simply to have been accused of it - invariably finished up in a prison cell, in a torture chamber, even at the stake or on the gallows.

In more enlightened times, atheists still suffered verbal and physical attack, ridicule and social ostracism.

Even today it is difficult to imagine (in the USA, at least) a professed atheist being successfully elected to any major political office.

So the stigma still clings to the atheist's coat tails.

Is there, I wonder, a more positive way to look at atheism?

Is it possible to set atheism within a positive framework, without depriving it of any of its essential characteristics?

Perhaps we could start by looking at atheism from a different viewpoint: from the point of view of what it is rather than what it isn't; from what it is for rather than what it is against.

So, for the moment at least, let's forget all about God, religion, eternal life, immortal souls, etc., and look at atheism from a different perspective.

The point has often been made that atheism is not a belief-system: that it is, in fact, the very absence of belief.

This is essentially true. But it is also possible to state that, although not a belief system in itself, atheism is normally based on a particular belief: the belief that only the natural world exists.

I say "normally" because all that the word "atheism" actually means is the absence of belief that there is a God or gods. That's it: nothing else.

So, strictly speaking, a person can be an atheist and still believe in all manner of weird and wonderful things: ghosts, witches, werewolves, astrology, evil spirits, messages from the dead, spoon-bending, fairies at the bottom of the garden, etc.....

In practice, one usually finds that atheists don't believe in any of those things. This is because the arguments against the existence of God are just as applicable to - and just as effective against - a whole raft of other non-verifiable beliefs and entities.

So most atheists are quite happy to declare their disbelief in all supernatural, paranormal, mystical and miraculous phenomena .....

The belief that only the natural world exists is known as naturalism (not to be confused, please, with naturism!!).

It is also inextricably linked with rationalism (yes, we're dealing with a lot of ‘isms' here today): the idea that everything in life, the world, the universe has a wholly rational explanation, ie an explanation based on reason, evidence and assessable argument.

Naturalism/ rationalism has a long and distinguished pedigree. Indeed, it is a belief-system that has existed since the time of the ancient Greeks.

Centuries before Christ, pre-Socratic philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes insisted that there were purely rational and natural explanations for things like floods, earthquakes, storms, solar eclipses, drought, famine, etc.

Many people at that time believed, for instance, that thunder and lightning were signs that the gods were angry, and that sacrifices were required in order to placate them.

Utter rubbish, said the philosophers. Thunder and lightning are simply the result of the clouds rubbing together.

This happened to be the wrong explanation, of course - which is not really surprising, given that the ancient Greeks knew nothing about electricity or atmospheric pressure. But at least these "natural philosophers" were looking in the right direction: towards nature and rational explanation, rather than towards myth and superstition.

Cultural relativists and others of that ilk like to argue that science and reason can be just as "elusive" and "subjective" as myth and superstition: that there is no particular reason to assume that science and reason have any monopoly on discovering what is real and true.

This is an attractive idea. After all, everyone loves debunking science and "proving" that there is more to life than the "cold facts" that scientists reveal and revel in.

But I think such a view misses the point. A rationalist is quite capable of accepting things which cannot be fully explained by science and reason alone - provided there are rational reasons for believing that such things may indeed exist, even if we don't fully know or understand the reason why.

For example: we do not (yet) have any really clear understanding of how the brain produces what is called human consciousness. But that doesn't mean that we have to renounce any belief in human consciousness: it just means we don't fully understand its cause and origin.

On the other hand, not only are there no rational explanations to explain why or how ghosts or fairies (or gods?) exist: there are no valid reasons for believing in the existence of such things in the first place.

Why not?

Because the evidence simply isn't there - or, whatever evidence is there, happens to be extremely weak and unconvincing evidence based largely on anecdote, hearsay and conjecture.

Many people complain that a rational, naturalistic view of the world is still a negative one, because it denies so many things.

But the only thing it denies is the supernatural. Everything else is still there. The world is still the same incredibly wonderful, beautiful, fascinating, awe-inspiring place it always was.

Atheists believe that the natural world doesn't need any sort of supernatural "overlay" to make it worthwhile: it's worthwhile in its own right. Seeking to impose a supernatural overlay on the natural world only diminishes it - and at the same time diminishes us for believing that such a thing should even be considered necessary.

But what about all those intangible things that make life so meaningful and so worthwhile: love, beauty, joy, passion, hope, etc?

I can assure you that rationalists and naturalists are just as attached to these things as anyone else. The only difference is that they believe that these things have a wholly natural cause and origin. In other words, they are products and processes of the human mind. The mind is an operation of the human brain. The human brain is a natural, physical object: it consists of matter and energy operating in time and space. There is no supernatural, non-material, "magic" substance involved.

This is normally the point where believers start throwing up their hands and talking about the "immortal soul".

I have discussed the soul at some length in my Hub ‘Reflections On The Death Of The Soul', so I won't repeat myself here - except to say that what religious believers call the "human soul" most philosophers and scientists are perfectly content to refer to as the "human mind".

And it has yet to be demonstrated that there is any difference.

So ....where does this leave us?

Well, it leaves us with the premise that atheism is a subset of naturalism and rationalism, and that these simply represent a particular way of looking at and seeking to understand the world we inhabit. It is a totally plausible and coherent view based entirely on fact, reason and evidence. Nothing else is required: there is no need or necessity to introduce any unobservable, supernatural, "other-worldly" entities to cloud the issues or muddy the waters.

Is this view of reality any more "negative" than the belief that everything was created out of nothing, and continues to be maintained and supervised, by some great invisible supernatural Being who can read our minds and (if He so chooses) suspend the laws of nature for some local purpose?

I don't think so.

The British philosopher A.C.Grayling has suggested that rather than use the words "atheist" and "theist" it would be more appropriate to use the words "naturalist" and "supernaturalist" to describe these two alternative and mutually exclusive ways of looking at the world.

In other words, we should move the argument from the narrow, self-limiting confines of a debate about the existence or non-existence of God to the much wider and more liberating discussion centered around the interpretation of reality.

This slight but significant shift of emphasis would, I suggest, put the burden of proof firmly in the supernaturalist's court.

I am aware that many people will not find this proposal particularly attractive. This isn't surprising, when you think about it. After all, if you have "faith" - if you believe that you are in possession of some "special knowledge" conveyed to you via a direct line from a personal God - why on earth should you bother your head with inconvenient and troublesome things like reason, fact, evidence and truth?

Unfortunately, those of us not in possession of this wonderful (if somewhat tenuous and intangible) gift have no option but to fall back on that imperfect, fallible but uniquely human of all activities: thinking.

The Bible tells us that The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.

The rationalist, on the other hand, says it out loud!