In recent days I have noticed several of the “new atheists” employing a clever and rhetorically effective soundbite while evangelizing for atheism. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens come to the top of my mind, but no one has encapsulated this sound bite better than Stephen Roberts: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
I consider myself a fairly seasoned apologist, but I must admit that this little rhetorical gem stopped me dead in my tracks. “How in the world should I respond to that?”, I thought. Fortunately for me, others have been thinking about this as well. Michael Patton has done a good job formulating the beginning of a response already. I would encourage you to read his thoughts on the matter. He even takes on the claim that belief in God is like belief in Santa Clause, so you get a “two-fer.”
I think my first response would be that the atheist’s claim that “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you” is a misuse of language. To be an atheist means one does not believe in the existence of any God or gods, so it would be inappropriate to call Christians “atheists.” The claim is rhetorically effective, however, because it makes it sound as if the Christian and atheist differ in only one minor detail (the Christian denies all gods but one, while the atheist denies all gods). Nothing could be further from the truth. A world in which even one deity exists is a radically different from a world in which no divine being(s) exists.
How would you respond to the claim?
Thinking to Believe 
September 16, 2010 at 7:53 am
I think it’s meant not so much as an argument as it is a way to get certain religious people to try and understand us. Particularly the ones who specifically say “I don’t understand how a person couldn’t believe” or “there are no real atheists!” or things of that nature.
LikeLike
September 16, 2010 at 11:50 am
I agree with NotAScientist. The statement doesn’t really need an answer because it isn’t meant as an argument. It’s just a means of helping religious people to better understand why the non-religious think as they do.
It does raise an interesting point: We’d probably all do a lot better if we spent less time trying to convert one another and more time trying to understand the other side. 🙂
LikeLike
September 16, 2010 at 12:58 pm
NotAScientists and Lucy Lowe,
I understand that it’s not an argument (that’s why I called it a “rhetorically effective soundbite”), but it is rhetorically effective, and thus it deserves an analysis, as well as an equally effective counter-soundbite. The post I linked to provided some analysis, but I am inviting futher analysis, as well as suggestions for a counter-soundbite.
When someone says “I don’t understand how a person couldn’t believe in God,” this atheist soundbite doesn’t really provide an answer because there is a big difference between believing in one or more gods, and believing in no gods. Theists see God as both a metaphysical explanation for many fundamental questions (such as where did the universe come from?, how did life originate?, what is the meaning of life?, etc.), as well a living experience and personal comfort. They fail to see how one can jettison the concept of a divine being(s) altogether, because that leaves so many fundamental questions unanswered and existential needs unmet. I don’t want this to turn into a debate over these issues. My point is simply that this is what theists have in mind when they offer the question they do, and the atheist soundbite doesn’t address it. What the soundbite does do is make it sound like the atheist is using the same logic theists do, but taking it one step further.
Jason
LikeLike
September 16, 2010 at 1:32 pm
“What the soundbite does do is make it sound like the atheist is using the same logic theists do, but taking it one step further.”
Which I think it does accurately.
The soundbite doesn’t mean to imply that atheists are using the same logic as theists do in relation to the god they do believe in. It’s implying that atheists and theists are using the same logic as it pertains to gods neither believe in.
Now this is not always true. Some theists merely don’t believe in other gods because their current religion tells them they shouldn’t.
But I would bet that a fair number of Christians, for example, don’t believe in Islam for the same reasons I don’t. And vice versa. See what I mean?
LikeLike
September 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm
NotAScientist@#4:
“But I would bet that a fair number of Christians, for example, don’t believe in Islam for the same reasons I don’t.”
Maybe, but that still has no bearing on why those Christians DO believe the fundamental teachings of Christianity. We are not Christians BECAUSE we reject all other options; as you suggested, it is more likely to be the other way around – we reject all other options because we are Christians.
Personally, I am thoroughly convinced of the absolute truth of Christianity, and have never come across anything that even remotely comes close to giving me a good reason to doubt it or to embrace one of the alternatives – including atheism.
On the other hand, we could look at it this way – I would bet that a fair number of Muslims, for example, don’t believe in atheism for the same reasons I don’t.
LikeLike
September 16, 2010 at 4:16 pm
NotAScientist,
Yes, I see what you mean.
Jason
LikeLike
September 17, 2010 at 3:03 pm
The “soundbite” presupposes polytheism.
If the atheist says we are both atheists, but that he or she simply believes in one less, this isn’t true, because, although they may believe in one less, I believe in one more. So, it could be said, we are all theists, you (atheist) just believe in one god less than I do.
Secondly, it cannot be claimed that we are all atheists simply because some theists deny polytheism. Many of us can properly be called apolytheists, and then the atheist believes in one less god than we do.
Thirdly, my ability to understand the atheist’s reasons for unbelief is not contigent upon my reasons for unbelief in other gods. While the reasons may not be mutually exclusive, one does not automatically cause the other.
The atheist typically denies the existence of my God due to there being no “scientific evidence” for His existence, as they might say. However, my denial of the existence of all the other gods, so-called in the world is not based on a lack of objective, empirical evidence, but rather because of “Thus saith the Lord…”. My apolytheism is attributed to my monotheism, specifically the Word of this one God that says no other gods exist. Nothing do with science. Just faith.
LikeLike
September 18, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Jason,
I followed your link and found the post utterly unpersuasive. The reason that Christians reject other gods has nothing to do with polytheism vs monotheism, or whether the gods were believed in due to social pressures or fads versus something else.
Other gods are rejected because there is no evidence for them, and because the miraculous claims are considered preposterous. That is true whether the other religion posits one god or many gods.
Additionally, Christianity has more divine characters than just “God.” You have the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. You have Satan, the god of death and hell. You have various types of angels. You have Nephilim such as Goliath, the “giants of old” who are the spawn of “the sons of god” (angels*) and the daughters of men. And other gods are mentioned throughout the Bible. So if having multiple divine beings somehow makes a religion untenable, that would apply to Christianity as well.
*Though modern interpretation claims that the minor gods called “sons of god” in Gen 6:2 refers to angels, many believe that originally the “sons of God” were part of the council of gods that make up the Christian god. Thus, the plural -im at the end of Elohim.
From the Canaanite religion of Baal, which the Bible writers were familiar with and mentioned in the Bible:
“In the Levantine pantheon, the Elohim are the 70 sons of El the Ancient of Days (Olam) assembled on the divine holy place, Mount Zephon (Jebel Aqra). This mountain, which lies in Syria, was regarded as a portal to its heavenly counterpart. The Elohim were originally ruled by El Elyon (God Most High), but He later hands His rule down to the god called Hadad who was known among the common people as “the master” (“Baal”). Assembled on the holy mountain of heaven and ruled by one, the pantheon (Elohim) acts as one. The enemy of the Elohim is Yam (“the sea”), a chaos monster slain by Baal. Each son was allocated to a specific people (e.g. Yahweh to Israel, Milcom to Moab etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
Arthur
LikeLike
September 20, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Arthur,
I think you have misread Michael Patton. He wasn’t saying the reason Christians reject other gods is because of polytheism vs. monotheism, or because those gods were only believed in out of social pressures/fads. He is saying one cannot make theism out to be just another belief in a god because the God of theism is very different from the gods of other cultures (although I think he is saying that one does not need to investigate the evidence for every finite deity if one has good philosophical reasons for rejecting polytheism). The reasons for believing in any particular finite deity, or all of the deities of polytheism combined are very different than the reasons for believing in the God of theism. Likewise, the reasons one might reject those finite deities cannot be used to dismiss the God of theism along with them. Why? Because the gods are quite different in nature.
As for why Christians reject the other gods, while some may do so because there is no evidence for those gods’ existence, I think Aaron’s rationale is the one most Christians adopt: because those gods are excluded in virtue of one’s faith in the God of Christianity. We experience God/Christ, and conclude that Christianity is true. And since Christianity teaches that there are no other gods, most will never even examine whether there is any evidence for any other gods. For them the matter is already settled.
Angels, demons, and the Nephilim are not considered deities in Judaism/Christianity. The first two are spirit beings, but not deities. And while I am not a Trinitarian, no Trinitarian would accept the claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are deities in addition to God; they would say these persons are God.
Modern revisionist scholars may wish to make that case, but it is clear from Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the OT at large that the Jews believed in one and only one God. While God is pictured as holding court, it is with angels.
Jason
LikeLike
September 21, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Jason wrote,
Indeed, I believe Mr. Patton has effectively countered this rhetorical debating tactic.
The mistake an atheist makes here is s/he is equivocating. An atheist knows, or should know, that God, in a theistic sense, isn’t defined as god in a polytheistic sense. If such a “god” were defined in the theistic sense, our “rejection” dissipates. We are thus back to square one: Are there rational grounds for the belief that God exists.
We can even grant for sake of argument the existence of Thor, Mercury, etc. A finite immaterial being must have a ground for being. It cannot be God, by definition; and if it is ascribed all the attributes of God, we’re back to the original point.
LikeLike
September 25, 2010 at 10:06 am
Scalia,
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that believing in one or more gods gives an explanation for the existence of the universe and life, whereas belief in no god(s) leaves one without such an explanation. So the difference between atheism and theism (mono or poly) is larger and more significant than believing in different god(s).
I think that’s correct. But the atheist disbelieves in various gods due to a lack of evidence, so disbelief in each god seems of the same nature to him.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 25, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Hi, Arthur. Thanks for your reply. No, that is not what I am saying. Here again is the rhetorical tactic Jason is writing about,
In other words, the atheist assumes the theist rejects all other gods (except one) for the same reason the atheist does; but that is precisely the mistake s/he is making. In order to sustain that assertion, the atheist assumes the terms are univocal. If Thor is a transcendent, infinite being (the ground of all being), then the theist would not “dismiss” his existence. The name “Thor” is simply, in that case, another name for “God.”
If, however, Thor is merely a powerful immaterial being (akin to an angel), the theist doesn’t even have to address whether or not such a being actually exists. A theist can simply assume for sake of argument his (Thor’s) existence and continue to argue that every contingent being has a ground of being other than itself; and the ultimate ground must be God.
At bottom, rhetorical debating tactics must be met with counter rhetorical debating tactics. Since the atheist makes a false assumption, one should simply point that out and move on. As I pointed out, the real question is whether there are rational grounds for theism.
LikeLike
September 25, 2010 at 12:20 pm
A quick follow-up to Post 10: I incorrectly used the word “equivocating.” As I point out in Post 12, the actual mistake is defining “God” and “gods” univocally.
LikeLike
October 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm
William Lane Craig addresses this objection here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03pyLpdbALQ&feature=related. In essence, he argues that this is a misuse of language. An “atheist” by definition is someone who denies the existence of a deity. In such case, to apply the term “atheist” to a Christian because he denies all other deities in YHWH is an improper use of language.
Jason
LikeLike
April 26, 2011 at 9:26 am
[…] in September 2010 I addressed a clever rhetorical gem that has become quite popular among atheists. It’s what I’ve come to […]
LikeLike
December 4, 2012 at 9:45 am
[…] two separate posts I have addressed a common piece of atheist rhetoric that I like to call the “one […]
LikeLike
June 19, 2020 at 3:27 pm
I would reply that their quip is rather like saying, “Nudists simply wear one less pair of pants in public than clothesists do.”
LikeLike
June 19, 2020 at 4:47 pm
I love it!!!
LikeLike