First, let’s see check with the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
Stanford University is one of the top 5 universities in the United States, so that’s a solid definition. To be an atheist is to be a person who makes the claim that, as a matter of FACT, there is no intelligent agent who created the universe. Atheists think that there is no God, and theists think that there is a God. Both claims are objective claims about the way the world is out there, and so both sides must furnish forth arguments and evidence as to how they are able to know what they are each claiming.
Philosopher William Lane Craig has some thoughts on atheism, atheists and lacking belief in God in this reply to a questioner.
In my discussions with atheists, they are using the term that they “lack belief in God”. They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I’m not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God.
What would be a good response to this?
Thank you for your time,
And here is Dr. Craig’s full response:
Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying, “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.
But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist.” So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses,
the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)
Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.
This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”
So there you have it. We are interested in what both sides know and what reasons and evidence they have to justify their claim to know. We are interested in talking to people who make claims about objective reality, not about themselves, and who then go on to give reasons and evidence to support their claims about objective reality. There are atheists out there that do make an objective claim that God does not exist, and then support that claim with arguments and evidence. Those are good atheists, and we should engage in rational conversations with them. But clearly there are some atheists who are not like that. How should we deal with these “subjective atheists”?
Dealing with subjective atheists
How should theists respond to people who just want to talk about their psychological state? Well, my advice is to avoid them. They are approaching religion irrationally and non-cognitively – like the person who enters a physics class and says “I lack a belief in the gravitational force!”. When you engage in serious discussions with people about God’s existence, you only care about what people know and what they can show to be true. We don’t care about a person’s psychology.
Dealing with persistent subjective atheists
What happens when you explain all of that to a subjective atheist who continues to insist that you listen to them repeat over and over “I lack a belief in God, I lack a belief in God”? What if you tell them to make the claim that God does not exist, and then support it with arguments and evidence, but instead they keep leaving comments on your blog telling you again and again about their subjective state of mind: “I lack a belief in cupcakes! I lack a belief in icebergs!” What if they keep e-mailing you and threatening to expose you on Twitter for refusing to listen to them, or denounce you via skywriting: “Wintery Knight won’t listen to me! I lack a belief in crickets!”. I think at this point you have to give up and stop talking to such a person.
And that’s why I moderate and filter comments on this blog. There are uneducated people out there with access to the Internet who want attention, but I am not obligated to give it to them. And neither are you. We are not obligated to listen to abusive people who don’t know what they are talking about. I do post comments from objective atheists who make factual claims about the objective world, and who support those claims with arguments and evidence. I am not obligated to post comments from people who refuse to make objective claims or who refuse to support objective claims with arguments and evidence. And I’m not obligated to engage in discussions with them, either.
- Is giving to charity more rational for religious people or atheists?
- An atheist explains the real consequences of adopting an atheistic worldview
- Why do famous atheists believe that God does not exist?
- Did Jesus exist? Agnostic historian Bart Ehrman debates Infidel Guy
- Is the Bible’s definition of faith opposed to logic and evidence?
- Do atheists believe that slavery is wrong? Can atheists condemn slavery as immoral?
- Do atheists have a lower divorce rate than Christians?
- William Lane Craig lectures on the moral argument at Georgia Tech
- Can atheists be moral? Sean McDowell and James Corbett debate
- If militant atheists could form a country, what would it look like?
- Chad Meister: can atheists make sense of morality?
5 thoughts on “Is the definition of atheism “a lack of belief in God”?”
I’ve been bothered a lot by this definition. Defining atheism as the lack of a position as opposed to actually having a position is the same, to me, as lacking an agenda as opposed to having one. If such a definition is permitted, atheists are free to push their worldview and pull down the Christian one.
Take for instance attempts by atheists, in the guise of “neutral” secular action to remove any symbols of religiosity from various places around the States, and the subsequent erecting of billboards in public places that claim only to help closet atheists come out and admit they “lack a belief in God”. If that’s all they wish to do, fine. Then why do said billboards claim that God is a “fairytale”. I’m sorry, but that’s a positive claim. It shoulders a burden of proof.
I know not all atheists attempt to hide under the guise of simply lacking a belief. I have more respect for atheists like Louise Antony who make a positive claim and attempt to back it up than for those who see themselves as winning match point in a game of burden of proof tennis against theists. That’s just cowardly and lazy, especially in this day and age where both sides have what they believe to be strong arguments. If your arguments are strong, don’t hide behind a slippery definition in order to avoid doing any actual work to push what is in truth a positive position.
As one person has put it, “Internet comment boxes are IIAs: internet ignorance aggregators.
Jake, the site you mentioned on your blog, godisimaginary.com (I did not capitalise the “g” because the god the guy refers to is certainly not the Christian one), was something I came across a few weeks ago. I have a friend who I discuss apologetics with, and when I read through the claims on that site, I contacted him.
As soon as I mentioned the name, my friend instantly knew it and gave a high sigh and a face-palm. He already know of it and the two of us picked apart everything on it in a couple of hours. He knows a lot more that I do about the Christian faith, and the look on his face as he read the fifty objections was one of bewilderment, as if to say upon looking at each “proof”: “You call THAT proof?” It’s the words atheist site I’ve ever seen.
There was nothing there even remotely new and he had barely anything that presented a challenge.
I once heard someone state that the “lack a belief” definition is hilarious because it’s only truly possible to lack a belief in or about something if you were never introduced to the idea and the idea never occurred to you in the first place. Otherwise you will have some kind of belief. Even the agnostic’s ‘there isn’t enough evidence to know one way or the other’ is still what they believe about god.
From this perspective an atheist who simply ‘lacks a belief in god’ would be completely unable to speak on the subject at all.
If self-professed atheists merely lack belief in God, then why are they so universally passionate about his non- existence? I have yet to encounter a single self-identified atheist who debates those who make the claim that God does not exist. They only ever engage theists.