The Non-existence of Non-believers

The disingenuous and nonsensical categorization of “non-believers” (4 min)

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. (Proverbs 26:4 NKVJ)

At some point, you will have run across articles (or videos) that talk about “non-believers.” You will also likely have run into a person who identifies themself as a “non-believer.” They might use other terms instead, like atheist, unbeliever, skeptic, or freethinker. They may claim to be “non-religious” and therefore not a “believer” in anything. For example, an article from Salon, titled “6 kinds of atheists and non-believers in America,” explains that “unlike religious believers, non-believers have no authorities, no hierarchies, no theology, nothing for us to look at to determine exactly who these people are.”

A substantial problem exists with this ridiculous description. Understand just how self-serving and impossible this description is. While attempting to describe those who identify as having “no religion,” we are told we have nothing to look at to determine who they are. How exactly does this article even exist then? How do you have polls that categorize supposed “non-believers” if nothing exists to determine who they are? The real reason this confusion exists is that the category they created, this supposed concept of “non-believers,” is total nonsense.

Whenever we talk about “belief” we are using relative terminology. If I came up to you and told you that, “you just need to believe!” and then simply walked off, you would be confused. And it would be obvious why. Unless you are so shallow and devoid of thinking as to take an empty statement at face value, you would wonder, “believe in what?” That’s because nobody simply “believes” in a generic, contextless sense. We always believe in something. There are no “believers” there are believers in something.

This applies to so-called non-believers. Such a label is a worthless thing to say by itself, because everyone is a non-believer in something. The reason this ends up being so self-serving as a label is because it gives the impression that supposed non-believers are nothing more than neutral, free-floating observers devoid of bias. This is wrong, even disingenuous. To categorize people this way is very misleading. What is a non-believer? What exactly do they “non-believe” in? The Salon article insinuates they are non-believers in “religion.” Except we run into a very similar problem. One that becomes apparent if you were to ask them to define religion. Any definition they give is bound to be inconsistent, if not outright self-interested.

What makes this such a problem is that it allows people to portray themselves as neutral and purely rational, when they most certainly are not. It’s an extremely vain and self-righteous portrayal of themselves. It is part of how Humanists, which most of these supposed “non-believers” really are, get away with an image of a purely objective logic machine that only ever “follows the evidence.” This is far from the truth, and Christians would do well to call out this self-serving framing.

Atheists, so-called non-believers, and the self-designated “non-religious” are not being honest about who and what they really are. That’s why the author of the aforementioned article found such difficulty in understanding who the people from this category are. The category exists only because people were given a limited list of answers to a question that they subsequently answered in ignorance. Specifically, the ignorance that comes from the prevalent myth in Western society of “irreligion.” They’re not non-believers; they simply don’t subscribe to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or other widely recognized (and labeled) religions. None of these people are devoid of belief. They most certainly have a religion; they are just unaware of it because they do not grasp the actual definition of religion and instead adopt prevailing ignorance concerning religious belief systems (see my own definition of religion here (coming soon!)).

Just take the quote from the Salon article at the beginning. It is outright false to say that non-believers have no authorities or hierarchies. What do you think communism entails? No hierarchies? Who are they kidding? What non-believing society or group exists with no hierarchy whatsoever? What about the appeals to “science” and “experts”? If science is something you can appeal to as an authoritative source of truth, then it is an authority! So-called non-believers have turned scientists into modern-day priests, with them having an authority all their own.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot appeal to someone or something and then pretend you have no authority. The author seems to conflate divine revelation and sacred writings with authority overall. As if people needed something they consider the infallible word of God to be seen as a valid authority. That is not how it works. Anytime you hear a “non-believer” make any claim that is justified with “science says...” or “experts say...” then you have an authority.

Non-believers, devoid of context, don’t exist. To even present yourself as such is to be deceptive about your own belief system. Everybody, without exception, believes in something and has a religion they adhere to. Regardless of how well thought through or understood that religion is. Categorizing people as “non-believers” based on a credulous negation of “belief” is merely a tactic for self-proclaimed atheists/non-believers to shirk the responsibility of justifying their own beliefs, while expecting others to do so. Christians should stop playing this game and call out the framing of belief without context. We need to stop using language that gives this impression. We never deal with non-believers; we deal with non-Christians of a nearly infinite variety. They are never objective logic machines; they are followers of a false religion that requires understanding in order to deal with properly.