When I see atheists represent their position online they most often say that they “lack belief in God.” The clunky nature of this statement bothers me. It also bothers me that the line has been distributed via the internet to such a degree that Christians see it as an atheist mantra. There’s no such thing.
The origin of “lack of belief” lies in atheist efforts to make it explicitly clear to theists that the burden of proof for God lies squarely on the believer’s shoulders. It’s as if they are afraid to admit to active disbelief because that would be a stance that requires a defense. Newsflash, we all should be able to defend our atheism. Among all the beliefs I hold, my atheism is among the easiest to defend.
As for the burden of proof, the concept should be discarded on this issue. The majority of theists and atheists alike agree that there can be no proof nor disproof of God. Evidence may be presented to make God’s existence more or less probable, but the sole path to certainty is through faith--which is only possible in the absence of proof.
Atheism is a belief. We aren’t born atheists, we are born with no concept of religion. The most accurate label that may be applied to an infant in regards to God is ignostic. To be an atheist you are answering the question of “do you believe in God” in the negative. No, I do not believe in God. I believe there is no God. I lack a belief in God. I reject the God hypothesis. All these statements apply to me and mean essentially the same thing. Let’s not hide behind semantics.
P.S. I did a poll within the main atheism community on Google+. Members "+1"ed the statement or statements that applies to them. Here are the results.
- "I don't believe in God" with +58
- "I lack belief in God" with +17
- "I know there is no God" with +33
For more, check my Quick "Lack of Belief" Follow-up.
"lack of belief" somehow implies that we are defective. I can see how people with autism spectrum disorders might have difficulty imagining an invisible being (since others' emotions are invisible, and that's hard for them to conceptualize)... but atheism isn't a disorder.
ReplyDeleteI think "knowing" is a bit arrogant because there is no proof one way or another, so merely not believing suits me fine.
Along those lines, I have always thought that the term "Godless" was kind of strange, because the term "less" implies that we are lacking something.
DeleteI'm right there with you. The simple fact that it needs to be stated so carefully bothers me. It's not like if you say "I don't believe in God" instead of "I lack belief in God" you will fall into some logical trap or something.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you mention it as an atheist mantra. I have a post I want to write (it's still nebulous and only up in my brain) about atheist mantra type things that bug me. A lot of people seem to repeat things to the point that they lose what made them interesting in the first place. Is anyone else tired of hearing about the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster?
I look forward to your post, I can think of a couple other examples myself. The FPM doesn't bother me as much because people usually put their own spin on it.
DeleteRight there with you on this one. To lack a belief in something implies in it's very wording that you have no concept or understanding of the thing you lack a belief in. That's not what atheism is.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't get me started on the 'babies are atheists' thing. It's total bollocks.
I enjoyed your "babies are atheists" post. If anything, we are born ignostic or apatheist.
DeleteYet the people who claim to know that there is no God are making an inherently irrational statement. They have no more basis for making a claim of knowledge than the people who claim to know that God does exist do. Lacking belief and having no belief are essentially equivalent, claiming to have some bit of knowledge that you cannot possibly have is not.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but a statement of disbelief isn't a statement of certain knowledge.
DeleteTrue, but a statement of knowledge is a statement about knowledge and if you have no way of having such knowledge, then your statement is false on it's face. You cannot know, to any degree of certainty, that gods do not exist, any more than theists can know, to any degree of certainty, that they do. The same applies to alien abductions, Bigfoot and unicorns. There's no reasonable way to say that you know, for a fact, that such things exist or do not exist because neither side has the slightest shred of evidence. All we can say is that it has not been demonstrated to us via evidence, logic or reason, thus we reject the claims provisionally, pending future corroboration. That's really what "lacking belief" is. We do not believe a thing until it is demonstrated to be actually true to such a high degree of certainty that it would be perverse to refuse to accept it.
DeleteMy new post talks about this. To me, a statement of belief isn't a statement of knowledge, it's just a personal, subjective assessment. This assessment can be based on complete knowledge, some knowledge, or none at all.
DeleteSure, right up until you start saying that your statement of belief is an argument of knowledge, I agree with you. "I don't believe in gods" is a belief. "I believe no gods exist" is a belief. "I know that no gods exist" is not a belief, it is an assertion of knowledge.
DeleteI'm sure you aren't alone in not liking that phrasing. I use it because I believe it is the most accurate way to understand atheism. Of course it isn't a mantra; it is just a reminder about the meaning of the Greek words on which "atheism" is based. This is its real origin. The burden of proof issue is relevant but secondary.
ReplyDeleteI will take issue with your characterization of the burden of proof. Until the theist has provided support for his or her position (i.e., evidence), there is no need to defend atheism. I do not need to defend my suspicion that my neighbor's garage is not really haunted until she provides some evidence to support the assertion that it is.
I'd say that "No, I do not believe in gods" is essentially the same as "I lack a belief in gods." Perhaps "I believe that there are no gods" only sounds different. It strikes me as including an assertion not present in the other two statements, but that may be getting to an unnecessary level of detail.
I suppose it's only when you have seen something unbelievable... and have heard something unbelievable...and have experienced something unbelievable...that you are willing to admit there is something unbelievable you have no explanation for "out there" that would not allow you to dismiss "a higher power" altogether as you atheist do. I am just as sure of what I know as you are of what you can't possibly know...if you haven't experienced it.
ReplyDeleteDoh! I just used that phase when explaining to a myopic Christian that:
ReplyDelete"Atheists are a very diverse group. The only thing binding atheists is a lack of belief, and that is not really anything to bond over. :-)"
You say to-mA-to. I say to-ma-to. Let's call the god thing off. ;-)
I think its got its uses, like any phrase, but, yeah, it shouldn't be a mantra.
It's funny. Thinking about this a bit more, it's not the phrase "lack of belief" that really bugs me. It's when one atheist tries to correct another. "It's not a disbelief in God, it's a lack of belief" or something like that. It's that kind of crap that really gets under my skin.
DeleteYou mean like Grundy? *cough*
DeleteHa! Just kidding. I know what you mean. :-)
I think you've made some great points Grundy. I just hesitate to make it an atheist doctrine such that, as Hausdorff points out, you've got atheist "correcting" others about the particular semantics they favor.
Interesting and thoughtful discussion. It isn't clear to me that a need to defend one's stance necessarily means we should drop consideration of burdens of proof. rather the point is that a burden of proof skews the process in complex ways. Admittedly, the weak atheist position often fails to do that justice.
ReplyDelete"No, I do not believe in God." (i.e. "I'm unconvinced")
ReplyDeleteis not essentially the same as
"I believe there is no God." (i.e. "You're wrong")
and none of them mean that you're atheist.
Semantics are nothing to hide behind. They quite literally mean something.
A member of any minority religion might reasonably say "I know there is no God", because God with a capital G is often understood to mean the Abrahamic god. But they are not atheist.
I do not believe in any gods. And I know some of them don't exist.
Is there an example of someone who does not believe in God yet believes there is a God? I don't think so. There is 100% overlap between people who "do not believe in God" and "believe there is no God." Both are statements of belief, neither of which need to be true in an objective way.
DeleteSo you're saying newborn infants "believe there is no God?" Or what about people that are uncertain? 100% overlap... REALLY!?!!?
Delete@Randy: And just how can a listener hearing someone SAY "God" pick up the capitalization of the 'g'? All they hear is "god". If someone hears "I know there is no god" they may infer the person is an atheist, provided the possibility the claimant is a liar or paradoxical is discounted. Keep it real.
DeleteI for one, do not believe in the Biblical God, but do believe in a "Divine Creator"... or what ever it was that created humanity and our marvelous earth. Of course newborns are born not believing in anything but a nipple being popped into their mouths. No one believes in any God until someone tells them about the variety there is and they make a choice to believe or not to.
DeleteI can say I don’t believe in a god and I am sure for most gods I can come up with a reason why I do not believe. For example the God/Jebus/Holy Spikit is not real as prayer has been scientifically proven to not work.
ReplyDeleteBut I still feel that It is not logical to say this in all cases, as something like Buddhism is well godless.
Saying prayer has been "scientifically proven" to not work is about as illogical as saying you can come up with proof positive that "most" gods can not to be believed because prayer doesn't work. It works for me and has all my life...and yes, I can accept "no" as an answer.
DeleteI don't know what "God" is and I don't know what it isn't...I only know how miraculous this earth and our lives are and whatever created that is the God I worship and it really isn't for anyone else to profess I'm illogical because I feel blessed by something that can't be scientifically proven.
Prayer is scientifically shown not to work. The "scientific" part is important because it means that when prayers are tested with a large sample size against a control group using the scientific method, prayer has no effect on the outcome. It may seem to work to you, but that is subject to your biases.
DeleteGrundy is correct about this. I actually have blogged about this and the disbelief among some Christians that prayer actually does work.
Deletehttp://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr/2013/04/godandscienceorg-and-lies-i.html
Also the link below by Will Ockham is a good one.
Sorry one more thing. I agree "No" is an answer, but then begs the question what is the point of prayer. Clearly the point of the prayer is pre-determined so there is no point to prayer.
DeleteAlbert Einstein, who I accept to be the most brilliant scientist of the 20th century, called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said an "attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
DeleteAnd that my friends is pretty much the way I feel, other than what I know for certain from experience.
Grundy dear...you can claim I have "biases" but you couldn't "scientifically" support it as I believe in no religion.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way the results of prayer could be "scientifically" studied to prove it's non-effect to scientist's. Who in the heck "up there" would be listening to such arrogance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
DeleteI'll just leave this here.
Don't take the comment that you have biases as a slight, I surely have biases too. We both have biases that have nothing to do with religion, confirmation bias likely informs your belief that prayer works. The scientific method is to filter out such biases.
DeleteGreat post.
ReplyDelete