The Myth that Atheism is the Lack of a Belief in God

I have been in discussion with some atheists recently regarding two of their more popular myths.

By "myth", I mean false feel-good beliefs brought into a culture and embraced against all evidence.

These myths are:

(1) Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.

(2) The claim that criticizing a religion does not imply criticism of all of the people who identify with that religion.

In this post, I will discuss the first of these myths. I will discuss the second myth later.

Both of these myths have to do with claims about the meaning of terms. Consequently, we must start with an account of the meaning of terms.

When attempting to defend the claim that atheism means the lack of a belief in a god they typically answer that it is built directly into the term. Atheist comes from the parts “a” (without or not) and theist (belief in a god). Thus, atheism means “without belief in a god.”

If this is a reasonable way to proceed then, contrary to the claims of every physicist and chemist, you cannot split an atom. The term “atom” come from the part “a” (without or not) and “tomos” (to cut or split into parts). It literally means “that which cannot be divided further.”

Just think, all these years in which physicists and chemists have been using the term 'atom' incorrectly.

In fact, that is not how one determines the current meaning of a term within a language.

The meaning of a term is determined by the theory that best explains and predicts the behavior of native speakers of a language engaged in using that term. The behavior in question particularly concerns linguistic behavior, but may include other forms of behavior as well.

One can support a theory with observations about behavior consistent with the theory, and falsify a theory with observations that are inconsistent.

Let us take the term "atheist" it " atheism". The "lack of a belief in God theory" predicts that native speakers of a language would be totally comfortable with assigning the term "atheist" to rocks, squirrels, and peopled with such undeveloped brains that they cannot form such complex beliefs. In act, they would view these assignments as obviously true. "Of course they lack belief in a god."

Observations show us that these predictions fail.

This, then, gives us reason to reject the "lack of a belief in God" hypothesis.

Here is a competing theory.

Atheism is the belief that the proposition, "At least one God exists" is certainly or almost certainly false.

This predicts that native speakers will only apply the term to those who assert that they have a particular belief. They will not apply it to rocks, squirrels, mentally impaired adults, or particularly young children. Indeed, this is what we observe among native English speakers in general.

I must offer a precaution here. Many of my readers are likely to be people who have bought into this atheist myth. A clique or sub tribe, consisting of significantly less than 0.01% of the native speakers of English, gave adopted a private language that redefines the term. However, this does not change the fact that, in the linguistic community at large, the term is used consistently with the second theory.

As a part of this myth, many in this clique that have adopted this private definition actually assert that it is the “correct” meaning of the term. They respond with condescention and ridicule when encountering members of the 99.99% who use the term with its standard English meaning. Thus, they add fiction upon fiction – myth upon myth.

There is a reason why this clique of atheists have adopted this myth. Unfortunately, it is not because the belief is grounded on sound reason.

It is grounded on the belief that the absence of a belief does not have to be defended rationally. By denying that atheism is "a belief that P", they feel justified in asserting that they need not offer argument in defense of that which is believed.

In other words, this clique of atheists is playing word games as an alternative to engaging in rational debate. By equivocating on the meaning of the term "atheism", they (often smugly) cross their arms and say, "I don't have to defend nothing. I don't have a belief to defend. It's your job to do the defending."

The statement, in most cases, is actually a lie. Those who employ this mythical definition of atheism still have the belief that the proposition, "at least one God exists" is certainly or almost certainly false. If somebody tries to use this “lack of a belief in God” claim, just ask them, “Is the following proposition true, almost certainly true, probably true, unknowable, probably false, almost certainly false, or certainly false?” Then give them the proposition, “At least one god exists.”

If they answer, “almost certainly false” or “certainly false” then they DO have a belief. In fact, they have exactly that belief that identifies them as “atheist” in the common understanding of the term. All of that talk about lack of a belief in God is just rhetorical nonsense.

In fact, one can now bypass this “lack of a belief in God” nonsense by saying, “Let’s talk about this instead.”

In spite of these protests, I expect that this atheist clique will continue to embrace the “atheism is the lack of a belief in god” myth.

Atheists are human. Among humans, it is all too easy for myths and fictions to worm their way into a community to such an extent that the community cannot easily abandon it – in spite of the weight of reason and evidence stacked against it. This fiction has become so much a part of the identity of this atheist sub-group that one cannot even be considered a full member unless one embraces (or at least pays lip service) to this myth. To question the myth is to risk banishment.

Yet, they will eagerly condemn theists who display these very same qualities.

Or, atheism is the belief that the proposition, 'at least one God exists' is certainly or almost certainly false.

And I, by the way, am an atheist as the term is used in English - and I see no reason to try to hide that fact behind some verbal smoke and mirrors.